Not true. Well, unless you fall for nonsense like the Lazard "study" that looked at exactly 1 nuclear power plant, the most expensive one ever built, and used that as "the cost of nuclear". Except that wasn't enough. They also had to lower the expected life of the plant.
When you look at actual costs, nuclear LCOE is highly competitive.
When you start looking at system cost (grid, storage, overcapacity required due to intermittency) nuclear becomes an incredible bargain and renewables are completely unaffordable.
Of course you can also look at actual electricity prices: electricity in France has been cheaper than in Germany for decades. And 7x cleaner.
That's all great, no doubt. But nowhere near close to 95% renewable mix.
[0] https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart....
Sure, it's a windy sunday. But that doesn't change the fact that we're on the right track and just need to continue with renewables.
https://www.energy-charts.info/charts/renewable_share/chart....
So why should banks fund a dozen high financial risk projects with huge initial investment and lower projected roi, when they can just hedge with a thousand smaller wind and solar projects that can be realised in much shorter time-scales, have a diverse pool of suppliers, and a known roi.
While I'm typing this germany is producing 95% of it's electricity demand via wind and solar.
And we built as much wind and solar capacity in the last 3 years as the total nuclear capacity ever had combined.
So no luck needed, all we need to do is keep steady and avoid derailing everything with bad investments like nuclear.