> Seems to me the people saying solar and battery only future do not live in areas that can be cloudy for multiple weeks.
Or we've researched it and understand the basics of solar technology.
In sunny California solar has a capacity factor of around 25%. In Germany, which is prone to many cloudy days this drops to around 10%. So yes cloudy days have an impact but do not entirely eliminate solar from contention and certainly don't require enough battery capacity to last all winter.
In terms of capital costs solar is around $1 per watt while nuclear is around $10. Combined cycle gas plants are roughly the same as solar. It takes a bit more than a year to build a solar farm, while a new nuclear plant you're looking at a decade. ROI on solar is on the scale of 1 to 2 years. Nuclear will be shockingly lucky to have even started construction in that period.
When we look at the levelized, unsubsidized cost of energy (https://www.lazard.com/media/2ozoovyg/lazards-lcoeplus-april...) we get a range of $24 to $96 per MWh for utility scale solar, while nuclear is $141 to $221 and combined cycle gas plants at $39 to $101.
And the trend lines strongly favor solar + storage.
Is it any wonder investors are reluctant to fund nuclear projects? For the same amount financed I can build 10x the capacity, have half the marginal cost of production, and see nothing but upside in 2 years.
Places like Singapore that lack land suitable for utility scale solar will need to look to other solutions including nuclear. For the rest of us the decision is not difficult.
Seems to me you are unaware of basic facts of the matter while you make naive criticisms of solar investment due to a personal affinity for nuclear technology.