After nearly 70 years, I think we need to take a hard look at what nuclear actually is. And it's a fantastically complex, wondrously large, construction project, that has to last a long long time without big repairs.
To the best of our knowledge of technology and industry, something like that does not typically get cheap. We may get slightly better at doing it, but there's a vanishingly small chance that we will hit a 10x reduction in cost for nuclear, and almost certainty that we will not hit a 100x reduction in cost. For anything like that, we'd need a massive new tech breakthrough such that it would be considered an entirely new technology. That breakthrough would be the underlying tech, not using neutrons and chains of nuclear reactions to generate heat.
In contrast, we have several technologies in hand that are going to see a 10x-100x reduction in cost, and even at current prices are competitive or the market leader: wind, solar, and batteries.
Look at any part of the country where there's an electricity market with any sort of freedom of generation, and new generation is dominated by wind, solar, and batteries. That's going to get more extreme in coming decades. Energy generation is going to get ever cheaper. (That doesn't mean that grid electricity will necessarily get cheaper, utilities will recoup lost revenue by making transmission and distribution more expensive, because they are very good at tricking regulators.)(
In any case, give nuclear a shot. But current attempts are skating to where the puck was 5-10 years ago, and they won't finish until the puck has spent 10-15 years more of shifting towards ever cheaper solar, wind, and batteries.
We all grew up with nuclear as the power source in our science fiction stories. But without a SF level advance in nuclear technology (e.g. direct neutron momentum-->electricity), we know that nuclear will at the very best be a tiny player in the future energy world.