I think you are going to need to add some citations (from a source without an agenda).

Each country is going to have different costs for energy usage so it isn’t clear why you are claiming the costs you do without putting them in context. For example, as might be expected, solar PV is more expensive in Canada. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_pla...:
“...Independent reviews rarely show that nuclear power plants are necessarily very expensive,[21][22] but anti-nuclear groups frequently produce reports that say the costs of nuclear energy are prohibitively high.[23][24][25][26] This is despite the fact that the cost of electricity in nuclear France is approximately half of that in Germany and Denmark.[27][28][29] In Ontario, hydroelectricity and nuclear have by far the cheapest generation costs, at 4.3c/kWh and 5.9c/kWh respectively, whilst solar costs a massive 50.4c/kWh.[30][31] "

For example, on the wiki page, the Brookings Institute (which doesn’t appear to have a financial stake in supporting or attacking nuclear power):

“...In 2014, Brookings Institution published The Net Benefits of Low and No-Carbon Electricity Technologies which states, after performing an energy and emissions cost analysis, that "The net benefits of new nuclear, hydro, and natural gas combined cycle plants far outweigh the net benefits of new wind or solar plants", with the most cost effective low carbon power technology being determined to be nuclear power.[106][107] Moreover, Paul Joskow of MIT has determined that the "Levelized cost of electricity"(LCOE) metric is a poor means of comparing electricity sources as it hides the extra costs, such as the need to frequently operate back up power stations, incurred due to the use of intermittent power sources such as wind energy, while the value of baseload power sources are underpresented.[108]”

Also the EU found:
“...An EU-funded research study known as ExternE, or Externalities of Energy, undertaken from 1995 to 2005, found that the cost of producing electricity from coal or oil would double, and the cost of electricity production from gas would increase by 30% if external costs such as damage to the environment and to human health, from the particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, chromium VI, river water alkalinity, mercury poisoning and arsenic emissions produced by these sources, were taken into account. It was estimated in the study that these external, downstream, fossil fuel costs amount up to 1-2% of the EU's Gross Domestic Product, and this was before the external cost of global warming from these sources was included.[109] The study also found that the environmental and health costs of nuclear power, per unit of energy delivered, was lower than many renewable sources, including that caused by biomass and photovoltaic solar panels, but was higher than the external costs associated with wind power and alpine hydropower.[110]”

In the US:
“...In 2014, the US Energy Information Administration estimated the levelized cost of electricity from new nuclear power plants going online in 2019 to be $0.096/kWh before government subsidies, comparable to the cost of electricity from a new coal-fired power plant without carbon capture, but higher than the cost from natural gas-fired plants.[98]”

>...A nuclear meltdown is called a "sacrifice zone" and a solar meltdown is called a sunny day.

Installing/maintaining PV solar (particularly on roofs) is not as safe as you imply in your comment. Even including Chernobyl, the deaths from nuclear power have been significantly less:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-so...