Problem with most sources is, there are always assumptions and caveats: Such as cost-based calculations (maybe or maybe not) including teardown and recycling, storage cost, capital cost, land cost, etc. Others do market-price-based calculations (preferably in those markets that prove their point), so you get renewable prices from Germany (where renewables are hugely subsidized and have to be consumed preferentially) that are sometimes even negative, or you get nuclear prices from France, where the owner of all nuclear power plants is a state owned corp (EDF) that is "rescued" from bancruptcy every few years to keep prices down.

I did pick the IPCC reports because those are usually regarded as being careful amalgamations of the available scientific data. Since there are lots of eyes on those reports, larger mistakes should have been pointed out already.

But you are right that there is contradictory information out there, and I don't really have the perfect authoritative source either.

> the owner of all nuclear power plants is a state owned corp (EDF) that is "rescued" from bancruptcy every few years to keep prices down.

That is as dishonest a take as it gets.

First, the "rescued from bankruptcy every few years" is simply not true. The company has been paying dividends every year for decades, and I can't think of a bailout of company debt in recent years.

Second point: Like most french state-owned companies, EDF is a vessel of "creative" accounting from politicians, but you'll find out that it's not tied to operating nuclear plants specifically. It's just that as a public-owned company, EDF is a tool for public policy. Sometimes it takes on debt to do so.

For instance, EDF is legally forced to buy back green energy at fixed rates as part of a package to help develop green energy. EDF is also forced to sell nuclear power to its competitors (ARENH policy) at fixed price, when they ask it. This means EDF competitors can arbitrage this agreement by buying nuclear power below market at times, and selling green power when market is saturated at other times. From the state's perspective, it's an OK thing to open the market and promote renewables, but from the company perspective it makes no sense. Thus, the company "pays" for a public policy.

This kind of accounting is usual in other former public companies such as SNCF.

That being said, nuclear costs figures should be accurate, since they come from the work of the french finance watchdog, the "cour des comptes", as well as from parlementarian investigations. You're right that these figures would probably not be possible without the scale economies of the initial rollout and without state-backing, but as you cite, this is also true for renewables or any other large industrial policy.