The more efficient option—even if more expensive—should be preferred. You may end up getting similar results, but the overall impact of trying to make solar panels play catch-up is more destructive in the long run. And they don't even catch up. By your own math, even at 70% capacity a reactor is 3x as powerful.
And re: the water requirements, those would also be a factor in hydroelectric so it's a moot point (assuming you see hydroelectric as a supplemental form of power to solar).
I've yet to do research into inputs of manufacturing a plant vs solar/wind/etc. so can't give specifics but just in the abstract what you've described sounds more wasteful (and that's if it can be done—there is far less ambiguity with the nuclear option).
As part of being massively more expensive, Nuclear actually involves significantly more indirect fossil fuel usage due to those costs. For example all a nuclear power plants requires onsite fossil fuel generators which need to be run regularly: http://aa-powersystems.com/wp-content/uploads/3061871_OE_Bro... Yet those generators are left off of assessments of CO2 releases associated with nuclear power plants. Similarly the centrifuges reacquired to manufacture nuclear fuel require vast amounts of electricity to manufacture and run. The nameplate generation from Nuclear further ignores those ongoing energy costs.
Also, 13,968,000 kWh per day * 70% capacity factor = 9,777,600 kWh so solar only needs 3x to 4x the land. Except, nuclear reactors need land near large bodies of water making that land far more valuable. So because you can’t put a nuclear reactor on the ultra cheap land viable for solar panels Nuclear actually ends up with higher land costs.