At $0.8/gross watt and 25% capacity, solar breaks even at around 20 years at 2c/kWh. At 3c/kWh you can also cover interest and upkeep and make a net profit. Prices are falling double digit percentages every year. The story is similar for wind, although prices are no longer falling rapidly.
2-3c/kWh for nuclear takes care of your variable costs of operation. You will never pay back the building costs at 3-4c/kWh.
The financial payback time for renewables is shorter than the build time for the nuclear plant, whereas the nuclear plant will need subsidy to stay on after 20 years or so.
Ie. if I have $10 billion right now, I can spend it on nuclear. In 15-20 years I will have ~0.8-1GW of net capacity that will begin to produce energy at a marginal cost of 3 to 4 cents per kWh and nothing in the bank.
Or I can spend it on ~4GW net of solar. In 20 years I will have my original money back, a modest profit, and a mostly worn out system that will conservatively produce ~1-2GW net at a marginal cost of around 1c/kWh for another ten years. Additionally industry trends imply that half of my money will buy me 6-8GW net of capacity in the same space if I simply replace the panels with 30-40% efficient ones (as over half of the current costs are land, permiting, and frame).
The outlook is not quite so compelling for wind, or high latitudes, but it still blows nuclear out of the water.
The story also looks a little better for nuclear if you're anticipating green hydrogen or ammonia costs to be prohibitively high or you decide to bulldoze the fossil fuel plants rather than using them as part of a chemical storage system. Additionally if you are anticipating energy growth nuclear looks good in the short term (but after 60 years we're basically back at square one arguing about thermal pollution rather than CO2)