> It doesn’t make much sense to compare the average outputs of wind vs nuclear unless you budget for a bunch of storage too.
It depends. If you're adding wind or nuclear to an already existing grid (which is usually the case), the already existing power plants can usually take over whenever the new power plants are offline or generating less power, and you don't need to budget for any extra storage. In these cases, the average output is the most relevant metric; it shows how much fuel (for a mostly fossil fuel grid) or water (for a mostly hydroelectric grid) it will save.
Possibly, but the discussion is about price per MW of nuclear vs wind, and I'm saying that's not a great comparison between generation types if you want power delivered all the time. 50% capacity is worth much less than 50% of the cost of 100% capacity.