And of course the advantage of nuclear over wind and solar is that nuclear has a 92% capacity factor with fairly regular well-planned outages.
The wind and solar costs you've seen, while stellar, do not include the costs of the backup generators and batteries, additional transmission to remote site, overcapacity required to charge the batteries at scale, etc etc. Nuclear is certainly on par with them in a fully decarbonized system. In any case, building nuclear alongside wind and solar makes the whole system cheaper [2].
Regarding 100 year no-go zones, the hottest areas I see around Fukushima today measure about 30 mSv/yr, which is about 2x higher than Denver's natural radiation. Japan is lifting even more evacuation orders as we speak [3]. If they gave people the proper information about the health risks (e.g. that you need more than 100 mSv in a year before the smallest measurable cancer increase can be seen) then people would have all moved back 10 years ago.
[1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution
For example, if you want to provide relatively steady 1GW of power 24-7, 12 m/yr, this can be done with a nuclear plant running at its optimal rate (*optimal for fuel rod lifetime and steady burn rate). With a solar/wind system, you'd likely need enough PV panels to produce say 2GW at noon, with 1GW going to grid demand and another GW going to storage, to meet demand at midnight etc. Balancing seasonal demand in subpolar regions would require a lot more power and storage as well, so nuclear may have an advantage there.
Clearly both systems are possible, but both have supply chain issues (uranium ore and fuel elements and reactor construction, vs. battery components and PV panels and wind turbines and storage infrastructure). However, I'd guess long-term maintenance costs are going to be much lower with solar/wind/storage systems (with much lower fueling/waste storage issues and liabilities, which would really just be battery maintenance and replacement costs).
Just to put an extra-fine point on this...the backup generators are typically fossil fuel fired, so the unpaid externalities apply to those as well.
> One hundred trillion dollars. That’s the total net worth of all Americans in 2017*.
[1] In 2021, net generation of electricity from utility-scale generators in the United States was about 4,116 billion kilowatthours (kWh) (or about 4.12 trillion kWh). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/electricity-...
UPDATE: So yeah power is rate of energy delivery, measured in Watts or Joules per second. Energy itself is measured in Joules or (equivalently) Watt-seconds. Units that are like kW-hour have power × time, so those are energy units. So if the USA uses 4116 billion kWh of energy in a year, that comes out to 469 GW of power averaged over the year. So you need about 500 GW-class nuclear reactors to generate the country's electricity.
Meanwhile electricity is only 40% of our total energy usage. The rest is transportation (almost all oil), building heat (natural gas), and industry (mostly natural gas). Those have to be decarbonized too, and if we switch them to electric alternatives we can expect our total electric demand to roughly double.
PS I always use GNU units for these kinds of unit conversions (`units "4116 billion kW*hour/1 year" "GW"`)
Often you'll see people argue that excessive regulation is what is driving costs up, but without a very high level of maintenance, nuclear power systems will inevitably have an unacceptable rate of failure. These safety margins need to be higher than those for units like oil refineries, coal-fired power plants etc., as the consequences of failure are so long-lasting (fires at oil refineries are relatively common, for example, but they don't result in 100-year no-go radioactive exclusion zones).
Therefore, to make nuclear accidents highly unlikely, maintenance costs amd engineering standards will inevitably be much greater than in any other power supply system. This means nuclear will always cost significantly more than any other system - and this also applies to storage of too-hot-to-handle 'spent' nuclear fuel, as well as to the costs of eventual decommission. In addition, the nuclear fuel supply chain (high grade uranium ore -> fuel rods) is fairly complex, and subject to geopolitical and economic price spikes.
All in all why would a utility manager these days looking at all the options for non-fossil-fuel power go with nuclear?