I think the steelman pro-nuclear argument is that if we seriously wanted to replace all fossil fuels with nuclear, we'd have to build so many reactors that they become faster and cheaper to build. They also don't require expensive seasonal storage like solar panels and wind would in most of the world or expensive HVDC lines from always-sunny areas of the world to the areas requiring seasonal storage.

So it might be possible that nuclear in the end is cheaper than renewables. Personally I'm not sure about that, but I'm not an expert in the field.

I would expect that companies that sell electricity are the experts in this field, and they don’t appear to be jumping on the nuclear bandwagon. I don’t have anything against nuclear, personally.

"The differences in outcomes for different assumed discount rates are dramatic — for example, NEA LCOE calculation for residential PV at 3% discount rate produces $150/MWh, while at 10% it produces $250/MWh.[15] LCOE estimate prepared by Lazard (2020) for nuclear power based on unspecified methodology produced $164/MWh, while LCOE calculated by the investor for an actual Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant in Finland came out to be below 30 EUR/MWh.[16]"

And then during the night we do... ? (We should also probably mention the fact that unlike nuclear, decommissioning and recycling costs are not included upfront, so you should budget for those too).

Solar on itself can only be a very small part of the solution. It needs storage most localities don't have the budget, place, technology to build.