Individual wind turbines aren’t very big, solar panels get laughably small, and while they are not efficient at their small form factors they are very easy to scale up and down. Nuclear is the exact opposite, representing a very large single point of failure, and even under pre-renewables hard to absorb; some of the first pumped hydro was developed to take excess nuclear capacity because it cannot scale up or down very easily.
You are right that China has structural advantages when it comes to building nuclear, and they are making use of them.
By 2030 there is 110GW planned of nuclear and 2800GW of solar and wind.
Unfortunate, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Without price anderson act dumping the liability on to taxpayers nobody would build nuclear reactors even at the cost they are.
The cost to produce such components that must safely operate in very demanding conditions is prohibitively expensive in comparison to producing a solar panel.
Solar panels will always win because you’ll never have the required demand to mass produce nuclear power station components.
It’s really that simple.
You can also bypass most project overrun concerns if you use already-approved reactors instead of trying to use a brand-new one, but of course this pushes back the schedule for profitability.
Given the current instability of oil prices, where considerably more than 4 countries are producers, it's perhaps dangerous to bet the farm on future fuel supply.
Edit: for reference each reactor consumes about 140 tons of uranium each year, and current production is lower than demand by about 10%.
So if there's a growth in nuclear reactors (which there is, in China alone) I guess we're hoping for an equivalent growth in uranium supply? Do yeah, you're not wrong. Currently nuclear, once built, is very reliable. But equally it has a "single supplier" problem as well.