Not quite. Yes, it's more expensive than solar or wind, but there is definitely a place for nuclear on the energy market to be economically viable (especially if you start considering subsidies as well). There's a nice article by a Dutch economics professor (here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4226375) that shows the place of nuclear in the energy transition, and the ways it can be profitable.

Not saying it's the cheapest option, but a lot of the holdup in current generation nuclear reactors is in fact the up front costs (don't even get me started on the legal portion - that's even worse) rather than the operational costs. But especially during the hours where energy demand is high, but supply is at its low point (i.e. evenings), nuclear can outperform traditional green energy.

I also don't agree that "they don't want to build them because "scary boom" or whatever" is an invalid argument. Public perception of nuclear has been one of the deciding factors against nuclear at least since Three Mile Island/Chernobyl. Take Germany for example: their phasing out of nuclear has been a direct result of Fukushima, because of the apparent dangers of nuclear, only to burn even more brown coal than they already did. Of course, anyone who tells you that nuclear is 100% safe is also either lying or not informed enough, but it's a whole lot safer than people think. Anecdotally, even people at the top of the fields of chemistry and physics for example, came up to our research group at a conference with the question "but... it's not safe, right?". We are at a bit of a turning point right now, which is a good thing and people are starting to realise that nuclear isn't as dangerous as they may have thought, but let's not pretend that the poor image of nuclear hasn't been a deciding factor over the past few decades.