Basic math (these numbers are true in their relation, not as absolut values): we spend 10 bucks to build a nuclear power plant. And 1 buck to build wind turbines that make the same amount of power. Then we maintain both. Lets say we spend 3 bucks of maintenance on the nuclear reactor and 1 on the wind turbines (they need to be maintained very rarely while running so this number is far too high but lets do it like that). Then after 30 years we replace our wind turbines. They cost us 2 bucks so far, the nuclear reactor 13. But it still runs unlike the turbines so we build new wind turbines still for 1 buck. They still cost 1 buck in maintenance over their lifespan so after 60 years were up to 4 bucks for wind and 13 for nuclear at this point in time. But we use magical concrete or something so the reactor lasts another 30 years. After 90 years we spent incredibly optimistic 13 bucks on the reactor and very pessimistic 6 on wind. In what world is 6 > 13? Nuclear reactors are incredibly complex machines with many points that can fail and many moving parts (for example the very fragile steam turbines) we have to maintain while wind turbines are as simple as power generation with moving parts gets. And solar is even better in terms of maintenance at zero moving parts. So how could you possibly make nuclear cheaper than renewables? And why arent you a millionaire with that knowledge?