It loses on accounting if you assign zero cost to the million+ lives that carbon emitting power generation takes every year, and the long term, possibly irreversible damage it does to the planet. If you factor in those two things even 1%, nuclear wins hands down
Cost of recent nuclear power in the UK comes in at $130/mwh at best. Where wind and solar are coming in at $50-80/MWh.
So for the same rate of investment you can decarbonize 2-3 times faster. And that doesn't figure the long lead times for nuclear vs solar, wind and batteries.
Does $50/MWh account for intermittency (i.e. the capital cost of building and running CCGT to cover the load when it's not sunny or windy)?
China is doing nuclear for around $66/MWh. That's a UK a problem, not a nuclear one.