The premise in the headline seems to rely on the assumption that if a dollar isn't spent on nuclear it would instead be spent on wind or solar. My opinion is that's a flawed assumption.
Wind and solar integrate well into a grid full of traditional generation (fossil, nuclear, hydro). There are eventually diminishing returns on that, though, as the simplicity of adding more wind and solar bumps up against the challenge of always keeping the grid balanced.
Batteries are generally touted as the solution, a cost the article doesn't address. Battery technology is changing, but reliance on future advancements is similar to the criticism of how long it takes to build a nuclear plant. Batteries also degrade. It's possible you could start building a battery today and a nuclear plant today. By the time the nuclear plant is done you're back at the battery replacing all the cells.
Curtailment of wind and solar is often mentioned as a cheap solution. Simply overbuild so you have more supply during minimum productions, and dispatch it down during maximums. This negatively affects the economics, though, because you have the same cost but less energy. The article doesn't talk about this, either.
In the US it's moot because nobody is going to put up the cash to build another nuke. They'll instead spend it loudly on solar panels and quietly on natural gas.