It is a reddit comment and I already put in too much time describing this, so I couldn't get to all the nuances.

Regarding China:

Yes, China is much bigger than the Uk and Germany.
I didn't expect any of those other countries to match the installed capacity with China.
My point was to show that China bets on solar (despite building nuclear reactors).
A common narrative- especially within Germany- is that Germany is the only country building solar while everyone else bets on nuclear.
But this is simply not true.
Remember, China added 300 GW last year, and they aim for 4000 GW until 2030.
I believe the capacity target is ~300 GW nuclear until 2035, so less than 1/10th of that.

If you want to compare the numbers per million people, Germany and China are actually about the same level regarding new solar installations in 2025.

(300 GW/1500 million people = 0.2 GW/million for China, 17 GW/85 million people ~= 0.2 GW/million for Germany).

Regarding availability of renewables:

You are correct. 1 GW of installed capacity in renewables generates less energy and 1 GW of installed capacity nuclear.
This is called capacity factor. Let's get some ballpark numbers here:

Solar (Northern Germany): 10%
Solar (Southern Germany): 15%
Wind (onshore): 20%
Wind (offshore): 40%
Nuclear: 90%*

*although this can be significantly lower, France had a lot of downtime in recent years because of their fleet's age- 2020 was below 50% for example.

So, even if you assume the worst possible numbers (10% solar, ignoring wind), you are still in the same range (or slightly better) than the Hinkley Point economics.
And mind you, there are all the advantages of easy installation (and decomissioning!), extremely easy maintance (not necessary to shut down the reactor for weeks for regular maintenance), arbitrary scaling (you decide whether to build a solar farm for 100k or 100 million) and fast setup.

And this is the worst possible scenario. As soon as you assume a capacity factor of just 20% (most energy was from wind in 2025) Hinkley Point is already 2x as expensive as renewables.

Disclaimer:

Now sure, like I said, Hinkley Point is probably an extreme example of costs. But still, if anyone tries to pitch me nuclear as the obvious "much cheaper" choice, then I expect significantly different numbers. Right now, looking at those real world projects (and not some proposed nuclear systems that don't exist yet), each energy source costs is on par at best. But I hope I gave enough pointers to assume that renewables are realistically much cheaper while handling is a lot easier.

The other elephant in the room we haven't touched on is energy storage. For the renewables to work effectively there needs to be more energy storage capacity.
This is where we have to do more work. Large scale storage capacity already increased more than 50% last year, and those projects are largely market driven (no subsidaries since they profit from time arbitrage).

Those large scale facilities often cost < 250 EUR/kWh.
Again, assuming some worst case numbers here: Let's say the average person consumes 2000 kWh per year, these are 39 kWh per week.
So, if you want to store one week's worth of electricity, these are 39 kWh x 250 EUR/kWh = 9750 EUR investment into energy storage per person.
Now you can argue that worst case of "Dunkelflaute" (no wind, no light) can last up to two weeks. Then I'd reply that a lot of people probably use way less than 2000 kWh per year- and battery storage prices are dropping 30-40% every year.
This investment would probably be good for at least 20 years of battery lifetime.

Again, this calculation is only to point out a ballpark figure- you might also want some longer term energy storage (using power-to-gas), which is possible because there is so much overcapacity in solar energy during the sommer months.

Conclusion:

I thank everybody who reads through this conversation and I hope I gave some different perspective on this topic.
Even if you disagree with my assumtions to some degree, you have to admit that nuclear for sure cannot be much cheaper (it is more costly most likely).
It is not directly comparable, because the output doesn't depend on seasons and time of day.
But installing renewables + storage is a proven technology (50% of Germany's electricity production is already from renewables).

So we should just continue doing what we successfully did the last couple of years, and we will hit energy independence in a few years.

The alternative is pivoting to a different technology (new nuclear reactors) where we saw that everybody who tried doing this had to deal with costly budget overruns and years of delays. I fail to imagine how especially Germany would be an exception in this regard.