What does nuclear cost versus renewables is the more relevant question. Most Western governments have favourable policies towards nuclear. Where the reliance on building is on private entities then the issue is either the economics of nuclear and/or subsidy. We need to be honest about the fact that nuclear seems to require subsidy. In that case, we need to look at what subsidy for a variety of generation technologies and potentially other techniques such as demand management get us to the best position. Given cost and the availability of sufficiently high grade uranium ores, nuclear maximalism is unlikely to be the best option. I suspect that were probably looking at 20% nuclear, or in other words broadly maintaining its market share, although for some countries (Iceland, Norway) renewables are more cost effective than nuclear. A reserve of always-on (bar maintenance, cooling issues, etc) power has an economic value that free market mechanisms for pricing doesn't address very well, so subsidies are valid. However, going all nuclear would be very expensive, as it was for France (or nearly all nuclear) which did it for national security and hides the retail cost through subsidies paid for through taxation.