Prices is typically meant to indicate where the market clears (if there is a market, if there are subsidies etc. it gets messy), but that is different from the cost of production (for example, from supply and demand).
If you believe regulations will be substantially reduced, fair enough, but is there legislation to that effect in the pipelines?
You continue to claim nuclear is cheaper, but that is certainly not how it plays out in places like France (or on average) - Californian prices are not the right measure there, nor hypothetical costs of nuclear.
You can allege that there will huge cost improvements on nuclear, but my point is that on other energy generation the costs are already down (without tinkering with discount factors because a lot went into operation with funding) and that technologies that are stagnant in costs tend to fail on that front. Changes to the technology as such (e.g., building different reactor types) could change that, but we don't know.
And, of course, solar could generate huge amounts of energy by, for example, plastering some large desert with it. That said, no-one is seeing solar as the only solution: wind, tidal, hydro, eventually fusion to name few. Some fission will be in the mix, too, because it is around or being build.