It did win against coal on a balance sheet. It's the environmental concerns that stopped nuclear from proliferation, not the economical.
It very much did happen for coal. That's what this whole global warming business is about.
Very, very few of these consequences have ever been priced into coal-fired power production; for decades, it's been a de facto subsidy. And while we're seeing some shifts needed to lower emissions to fight climate change, many of the identified externalities still aren't priced in. Nuclear energy never received that kind of benefit of the doubt, or the sort of friendly regulatory capture that let society ignore many of its own negative externalities and risks.
0. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-h...
1. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-human-cost-of...
2. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=info%3Adoi%2F10...
3. https://news.stanford.edu/2015/01/12/emissions-social-costs-...
This still isn't the case in most of the world.
There's nothing wrong with it. A cheap fission technology would be a good thing. But at this stage literally no one is interesting in throwing money at a technology that is now into its eighth (!) decade of maturity. The low hanging fruit got picked by our grandparents.