You forgot to factor in the capacity factor, about 13% in Europe for solar while nuclear can be north of 90%.

For the same maximum energy produced in a year, solar costs about the same as nuclear.

If means to compensate for the variability are factored in, the cost of solar is even higher.

Moreover, nuclear plants have double the lifetime while costing roughly the same.

Nuclear fuel is available elsewhere, even in Europe.

Not really, France was able to move most of its electricity production to nuclear very fast - with most reactors taking less than 5 years to be built.

But it doesn't have to, there are plenty of reserves elsewhere and transport is simple due to the high energy density.

40 years is plenty of time to bring online reprocessing tech able to extend the availability of uranium indefinitely while also solving the waste problem.

Unfortunately wind and solar have a hard ceiling - they depend on other power plants to fill in due to inherent variability and limited storage.

This usually means we need either fossil fuels or nuclear.

Reactors can be build in as little as 3 years.
The carbon build cost is in the same ballpark as renewables.

It's neither cheaper nor faster.

The upfront investment is about the same for a given energy capacity but a nuclear plant could last 80 years while renewables are replaced after about 25.

Nuclear can be built very fast - it takes between 3 and 5 years for a reactor. Messmer's plan proved that we can move most energy to nuclear in 10 years while renewables may need many decades.

Nuclear is also very safe, even compared to renewables.

Affluent first world countries may very decrease their emissions by going nuclear so the third world may develop cheaper renewables instead of burning fossil fuels.