Generally, low latitude places want more solar + batteries, high latitude ones want more wind + hydrogen. When optimizing with these four, plus nuclear, with the costs at that site, nuclear typically optimizes to 0%.

Right now I don't think people are pragmatic enough for that to be politically viable in most western countries, but that may shift as the adverse effects of AGW start to be more acutely felt (and, hopefully, as more and stricter carbon taxes are implemented across the world).

Using the 2030 data is proper, since any nuclear reactor we begin to build today won't be available until about then (which renewable and storage systems can be built in just a couple of years.)

Some of their cost figures are already too high, btw. Their 2030 estimate for the cost of electrolysers was 600 euro/kW; it's already down to half that (or even less, in China).

Unfortunately, power transmission suffers from line losses. Even a few hundred miles requires several hundred thousand volts to avoid losses. Maybe that's an easier problem to solve than fusion.

You know, easy stuff to build and maintain.

source: http://en.people.cn/n3/2018/0622/c90000-9474097.html

But I am not even remotely concerned about nuclear safety. If noise and traffic were no concern I would live right next to a nuclear power plant.

Personally I don't think solar is ever feasible for industrial scale work, covering like 1/3 of your landmass is a ridiculously large project and needed to fuel industrial operations that currently use fossil fuels to fuel them including fertilizer production. Even if you can shrink that down a bit, how much of it is competing for farmland? Or replacing natural forests or plains or other wildlife housing.