So if nuclear is significantly more expensive that wind/solar like stated in the original article and faster to build (or are you disputing the numbers?), why would we not use the same money to instead build more renewables to get us there faster?
The classic answer is storage and on-demand production. Massive pumped storage is one partial solution the solar energy but I think the environmental impact is great enough that it would prevent it from ever being implemented in the United States.
I haven't seen the numbers that justify that wind/solar are cheaper than nuclear if you aim to fully de-carbonize (get rid of coal and gas completely). Massive amounts of storage would be needed, which is hard except in areas with a lot of hydro dams available.
