We don't know how to build nuclear, much less on the grand scale that would be needed, probably 50-100 reactors for the US alone.
So clearly no rational economic actor is going to undertake a build on their own, after what we've learned from Vogtle and Summer. We wouldn't be able to find a contractor or a utility or anybody that wants to take on that risk. So what's left is a massive government subsidy, of somewhere between $500B - $1T to build reactors.
What if, instead of government actors deploying $10B-$20B per year to build reactors, we spend half on well-proven technology like lithium-ion grid storage that the government owns and operates at cost, and spent the rest to buy the early products of industries that are developing, including nuclear SMR, in order to give them the chance to advance their learning curves and become more cost effective?
Nuclear technology, as it exists today, is dead in the water. Even if we eliminate all regulation and all local NIMBY opposition, we are left with the problem of finding merchants willing to construct it. This is a serious problem for the technology, and it's innately tied to the technology itself, the engineering required to build these massive reactors, and the tight construction tolerances that are required to make them work.
We need a nuclear tech revolution before it can compete with storage and renewables. Solar and storage are ultimately thin film technologies, which works great with our current manufacturing capabilities. Wind is lots of identical, smallish generators. Nuclear does not fit at all with our current construction capabilities or engineering practices and capabilities. Until it can be brought into the modern world (possibly through SMR), it is not a good technology.
Remember that there is no economically viable way to recycle lithium.
The price of lithium must go up 5-8X.
What assumptions go into a 5-8x lithium price increase?
We can't even recycle lithium for batteries cost effectively yet.