> you can get double the capacity in wind, and double the capacity in solar
And the capacity factor of wind is ~33%, which means you need ~3 times as much wind as nuclear. The capacity factor of solar is ~25%, so you need four times as much:
You've only quoted half of what you're replying to. You can get the solar, and the wind, and the storage, all for less than the cost of building nuclear once accounting for cost overruns.
It's also with noting that nuclear has a higher capacity factor, but it's not 100%.
And that's priced into the LCOE which is a tiny fraction of nuclear -- especially once you factor in the costs of security and infrastructure, and the public being left holding the ball during decomissioning and waste storage, and of being the USA's and the next Kochs' patsy because now your entire energy infrastructure depends on them for fuel.
And then LCOE isn't even the right metric, because what matters is the CO2 produced by 2040, not the CO2 produced between 2040 and 2100 as we have to solve this now, or the world will be too unstable to finish a nuc.ear reactor, let alone run one until decomissioning. This makes the LCOE of renewables a little higher, but for nuclear it is between 10x and infinity times the cost per unit carbon.
It's also with noting that nuclear has a higher capacity factor, but it's not 100%.