I'm also a proponent of nuclear.

And I agree that nuclear is not competitive with solar.

But we haven't really invested in nuclear for more than 4 decades now. Nuclear is just a technology. There is no reason to think nuclear capital costs need to be forever locked at the current levels. China has at least three times lower capital costs for nuclear power plants (judging by the cost of the Karachi units 2-3 at $9.5 BN [1] vs the Vogtle units 3-4 at $36.8 BN [2]).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karachi_Nuclear_Power_Complex

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...

I see it as an issue of path dependency - we had the option to invest in nuclear but did not. Instead we invested in solar, wind and battery. Because of this, the latter is now the better alternative, and it makes more sense to further capitalize on that path rather than "reviving" a previous path for untold billions and tens of years.

Bespoke behemoth power plants may have the advantage size in the ability to generate power but they seem to be impossible to bring in on schedule and under budget.

Small Modular Reactors should upend that hegemony through mass production but so far still can't compete. SMRs would be perfect for converting every single existing coal fired plant and allow our power generation to go carbon free in record time.

I'm pro-renewables but believe we need as many energy options as possible.

China has at least three times lower capital costs for nuclear power plants

Well, yes. When consider 'health and safety' as a 'down on the priority list' requirement, there are any number of cost cutting opportunities available to you.