Maybe. The thing about nuclear reactors is that the fuel cost is nearly zero on account of how little of it you need. Even with reprocessing, it is still <$0.01/kWh. So nearly all cost with nuclear is upfront. Mass production of nuclear power plants will drive that down dramatically. Nuclear, if done at scale, is can be very cheap.

So having a stable source of cheap electricity that can be built in nearly any location is still a good idea. Even in a world with super cheap green hydrogen.

With nuclear you're burning your powerplant, essentially. That the fuel is comparatively cheap is irrelevant, since that's not what's dominating the cost of power.

That's what I said. It's the cost of the powerplant that drives nuclear's cost. But you can reduce that dramatically via mass production of power plants. It will be a cheap source of electricity if done right. And we don't want just one energy source for everything anyways.

It's not at all clear mass production of nuclear power plants will reduce cost. This has not been demonstrated. It runs counter to economies of scale from large power plants.

You pick one reactor design and make dozens of them. That will be much cheaper than building a bespoke reactor type every time.

Again, this has not been demonstrated. Nuclear in France showed negative experience effects.

A lot of that is just anti-nuclear propaganda. Nuclear in France does not have major problems.

I'm sorry, you don't get to dismiss inconvenient facts by calling them "propaganda".

There's no such thing as a perfect solution. The problems people keep on bringing up are minor and do not qualify as serious problems.