When this was announced over 10 years ago, the overwhelming majority of people concluded it's a shame they will be replaced with coal. Fast forward ten years and the use of coal is at a record low, the use of gas has not really changed in a meaningful way and overall the situation has improved significantly on its own, but especially compared to some other developed countries. E.g. the US is still at 60% fossil fuels and not going down faster than Germany. This should be a bigger problem, but it's not really talked about, and neither is the per capita consumption a.k.a. efficiency which is in the US abysmal.
People should focus more on outcomes of policies and not their favorite tech. If they'd do that it would be easy to see that nuclear has existed for 70 years and it has failed to replace fossil fuels worldwide in a meaningful way. To me it's obvious the costs are prohibitive and this is unlikely to change. It hasn't thus far. If someone can get it done, by all means, but it hasn't happened. Instead we hear about small modular which was already tried in the 80s because of the high upfront investments of large plants, but those turned out not to work because of even higher per MWh costs. So it was back to huge plants which again turned out to be difficult to build. I am seeing a pattern here.
Renewables are accomplishing a lot more and a lot faster and there's no need to waste resources on something else. If they can't get us to 100% they can get us as fast as possible to whatever is possible. And thus far all the predictions on what is realistic for renewables as a percentage of the grid have failed dramatically.