For what it's worth, I do agree, but I think we'll probably need to have (subsidized) nuclear as part of the solution anyways, especially in places where we don't have ample room for wind/solar/battery storage.
There are geopolitical concerns to relying on your neighbors for energy transmission, but it's hard to think of any technical or financial reasons that would stop it. Given current learning rates and cost trends, utility solar will likely be under $0.01/kwh in just about every place on earth. Certainly within 15 years, likely within 10. When new-build nuclear is above $0.10/kwh and takes a decade to build, the delta buys you a ton of storage.
I wonder if it still makes sense to keep nuclear energy around in the mix as a sort of backup, though. We've already got a ton of plants that could probably last more decades with proper maintenance to my understanding, and despite making up a small number of energy production facilities they make up a huge mix of the energy in the world, so it seems like it could be a solid backup plan in a primarily wind and solar world.
Windscale could have been cheaper, but some jerk called Cockfort insisted on additional filters just in case -- oh wait, that "Cockfort's folly" turned what could have been a horrifying accident into a merely bad one.
Chernobyl was cheap, but it didn't have a containment building. Modern nuclear is safer, but that cost more money. Nuclear needs emergency cooling to be safe, which costs more money. It needs redundancy, which costs more. And so on.
So what is it exactly what you think needs cutting?