It is cheaper by all measures. Which is what you're not understanding. Even if there is a a few years until actually being fully operational. It is still a bet

It is cheaper by all measures. Which is what you're not understanding. Even if there is a a few years until actually being fully operational. It is still a better use of capital, providing the situation you described (no regulations for everyone). Which, to me, would remove the substitutes to solar. A nuclear power plant has lower upkeep than the 20-30 year lifespan of wind and solar. This is a large cost you aren't including. Small nuclear is uneconomical the last time I ran the numbers but mid to large scale is. 1 GW Nuclear power plant uses less land, less resources in materials and labor, and is more durable considering the maintenance/upkeep. If you compared that to solar or wind, using the most economical price point, it wouldn't even come close. But Nuclear has major problems, since your situation isn't realized, an investor could lose 100% of their investment just to be used as a political scapegoat. You don't see that often with Wind and Solar. So, given the current environment, yes, Wind/Solar are more economical but give no regulations and no substities, Nuclear would be the most economical.