Here is a simple equation for you to work through,
Plant Vogtle will have a peak summer rating of 2.1 GW and will be offline altogether for an average of 100 hours per year and at half power for at least 600 hours and will generate about 17 TWh per year at an operating cost of about US$40/MWh will have a finished cost of US$25bn. That capital cost will leave a finance and depreciation bill of around $1.8bn per year, that adds around $100/MWh to the power cost. i.e. if the plant achieves 90% capacity factor for its entire life the averaged delivered power cost will be around US$135-150/MWh.

For US$25bn today in the US you can build 6 GW of dispersed wind US$8bn, 9 GW of tracking solar $10bn and 2.5 GW 33 GWh hours of batteries $7 bn. At modern US capacity factors the wind will generate 23 TWh, the solar 22 TWh or almost 125 GWh per day, approximately 2.6 times the energy from the nuclear plant. In most of the US wind is stronger at night and in winter and solar is clearly stronger during the day and in summer so if you examine seasonal variations in a balanced wind and solar grid like the NEM, you will find that the seasonal variations are quite small even though daily generation can vary by a factor of two or a little more. In fact on the NEM recently the worst wind and solar day has been 70% of the average wind and solar day. As the proportion of high CF wind and east west solar increases, day to day variation declines

So lets assume that on a really bad day the wind/solar combo only delivers 50% of its average daily output or 62 GWh that is still more than the nuclear plant running absolutely flat stick which would be 53 GWh. Even if the wind and solar combo dropped to 30% of average or 10% CF for the whole day, that plus only 50% of the battery storage is still slightly more than the nuclear plant on its best day.

Now there will also be really good wind and solar days where generation is more than the system can absorb or store and some is lost in and out of storage so lets say we can only use 40 of the potential 45 TWh generated per year. The operating and maintenance costs for wind are around US$15/MWh and solar $10 so lets say an average of $13. The life of the components is shorter than the nuclear plant so the finance and depreciation bill will be around $2.4 bn or $60/MWh for a total of $73/MWh including storage.

Now the financial equation is actually much worse than this for nuclear because the nuclear project will take 4-5 years to go from concept approval at board level to turning the first sod and 10 years to commissioning, all the while consuming vast amounts of money, so the investors have to carry that cost for 14 + years. For the wind/solar/storage combo which will be built in 100-200 MW stages they can be producing first revenue in 18 months and be at profitability within 4 years. The whole project would have returned most of its capital before the nuclear plant was turned on.

Further the idea that a nuclear plant in a high renewable grid could achieve 90% capacity factor is fanciful. Within five years there will be days where renewables can briefly supply 100% of demand on the NEM, and those periods will increase every year. So unless the nuclear plant is prepared to bid negative prices it will have to ramp down. Thus achieving a capacity factor much above our existing black coal fleets 62% would be heroic. In the meantime if the wind/solar storage investment is spread out over say six or seven years, at current rates of decline the last solar farms will be half the current costs, the wind farms will be 40% cheaper and the last batteries 60% cheaper, so in reality the total renewable cost will be 20-30% less than the above numbers while a nuclear plant in Australia will be expected to cost 15-20% more than an equivalent US plant simply because we would have tto import most of the skills and components

From a system reliability point of view the renewable generators and storage would be spread over 50-100 sites and a a similar number of transmission lines, it will never have zero generation and with the storage all the spinning reserves are built in, the nuclear plant needs at least 6 GW of alternate generators running at part load or two GW of its own storage to provide trip protetction, but if a storm causes transmission to go down or a drought reduces cooling water flow the storage won’t help

So please explain why anyone with any idea of getting a return on investment would invest money in nuclear in Australia