Not really. One of the things prohibiting the market is the Price-Anderson Act, which stipulates, irrespective of the sort of reactor (and since there have been newer and cheaper reactor designs) a level of insurrance that nuclear plants need. Effectively, this has made it impossible to enter the market with reactor designs that are smaller and safer and do not require the insurance proscribed by the act. I don’t personally know operational costs for these other sorts of reactors, but suffice it to say there are artificial limitations in place that skew this market.

Not quite: the main thing hurting nuclear isn't wind/solar, it's natural gas. Which is unfairly cheap (and thus effectively subsidized) because the externality costs of CO2 aren't being priced in. If we had a carbon tax and thus a level playing field, nuclear could beat natural gas.