1. Study is only about Denmark which has both an advanced Wind Turbine industry and a lot of wind. This is not generalisable.

2. Study calculates the financial costs, not the energetic cost. Given that the energy market has a lot of subsidies, taxes and government owned companies, the prices in currency are not a good representation of the real costs. A framework like EROI (Energy Return On Investment) is a much better indicator, because it looks at the amount of energy generated per amount of energy spent.

3. Nuclear power is expensive because it has ridiculous safety demands compared to all other technologies. If all energy sources would have to incorperate the potential risks they pose in their safety measures, they'd be much more expensive. To illustrate: The Fukushima disaster cost two (2!) lives, whereas each year, 6 to 9 million people die because of the effects of fossil fuel generated air pollution. If owners of fossil infrastructure would be liable for those deads in the same sense as owners of nuclear industry currently are, nuclear would blow the competition out of the water.

Nah, can't trust these studies:

Nuclear is expensive (when measured outside China as another hexbear suggests in the comments here) because the west cannot build affordable nuclear. All solar panels come from China too, if we could import Chinese nuclear it would be competitive.

Bu bu buh my online nooklear shills keep telling me it's the only solution

That’s what happens when you have changes that’s can be iterated really quickly without the safety overhead.

I hope it all adds up with some sort of geothermal closing the gap. The state can start to wither way in centuries as we permanently bury the last of the waste.