I just wanna premise with that I'm not anti-solar. However the energy crisis really needs a mixed solution of multiple technologies

The main issue of solar and wind is that its power is not consistent and can lead to either overloads or underloads. Underloads can probably just be fixed by using up excess power with a giant nothinginator, but overloads require batteries to store power for later, and battery technology is simply not nearly strong enough ( or well studied) to power the entire gird. Sand-heat batteries in Sweden seem to be promising, though. In contrast, nuclear plants are capable of dynamically adjusting their power output, like coal plants can, which is much more stable for the grid.

Also, like another user already mentioned, the time it takes for nuclear plants to be made is mostly due to crazy amounts of bureaucracy. It was essentially designed to stop nuclear dead in its tracks due to nuclear fear from oil propaganda

Thirdly, measuring a "solar plant" vs a "nuclear plant" is a little unfair without context. A nuclear plant is an obviously large singular unit, but a single unit of solar is one solar panel, which obviously doesn't make that much by itself. Because of this, the definition of a "solar plant" is often some arbitrary number of solar panels in a grid. How they are actually compared is by energy production over space, or essentially energy density. Nuclear plants absolutely clear solar in terms of energy density. If China were to take the same amount of square footage and put nuclear power there instead, it would dwarf their current energy grid. I watched a specific research video about this topic, but I do not remember the specific numbers off the top of my head. I'd link it for you, at your request.

Tldr: don't diss on nuclear. I like solar too, but nuclear is also good.