The summary is so off-base that it's in the "not even wrong" category:
Two Standford PhDs, Ross Koningstein and David Fork, worked for Google on the RE<C project to figure out how to make renewables cheaper than coal and solve climate change.
Yes, that's true.
After four years of study they gave up, determining "Renewable energy technologies simply won't work; we need a fundamentally different approach."
Well, yeah, that quote is in the article, but it's not in response to the question "can renewables be cheaper than coal".
As a result, is nuclear going to be acknowledged as the future of energy production?
No, because you're answering the wrong question.
Let's go back to the article:
At the start of REwith steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope—but that doesn’t mean the planet is doomed.
As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.
There's the quote in the summary, and those bolded sentences are what it's referring to. Not "can renewables be cheaper", but "even if we switch to renewables, can we significantly reduce CO2". And from the sidebar with the two graphs:
Yet because CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for more than a century, reducing emissions means only that less gas is being added to the existing problem. Research by James Hansen shows that reducing global CO2 levels requires both a drastic cut in emissions and some way of pulling CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it.
While nuclear may be a fine technology, it doesn't "pull CO2 from the atmosphere and store it". So, no, Subby, nuclear is not the answer to the question they were asking either.