This is kind of silly. Yes, nuclear is more expensive than wind, but this is irrelevant because (as the article also acknowledges) you can't replace nuclear with wind, you need something that works when the wind is not blowing.

Rather, the tradeoff is between nuclear power and carbon-based power (and also hydro, but most places already built all the hydro power that geography permits). And the problem is that nuclear is also more expensive than natural gas power plants. However, those are slowly ruining the planet, and if you take the cost of climate change into account, the carbon is much more expensive.

The solution is for the government to either subsidise nuclear or tax carbon, to account for the externalities. This still won't make fusion power attractive right now, but in a couple of centuries we will be running out of the most accessible uranium deposits, at which point fusion might look better.