We're solving for the same problem. There is no path where nuclear is the most cost-effective solution.
If money is no concern, the fastest, most certain-to-succeed solution is mass-mining for battery materials, massive investment in things like sodium-based batteries and a huge investment in battery production capabilities. Scaling up solar provides the power, the batteries provide the storage. That results in net zero.
Nuclear takes decades to build. "Reactivating" Germany's old and derelict reactors beyond their shelf life is dangerous and doing it safely is probably about as fast as building a new, higher capacity reactor. Which is to say, it's very, very slow. And even then, you'd need dozens if not hundreds of reactors to meet the total power demand (France alone has 50+). There's geopolitical concerns too, as reactors run on fuel that is not available in most of the world, some of the highest producing countries are either Russia or firmly in their backyard. IIRC Canada and Australia also produce a bit but not enough.
And then there's the fact that we do not have nearly enough qualified people to build and run all these nuclear reactors. Meanwhile installing solar panels and battery packs is comparatively dead simple, and we have plenty of people who can do it.
Nuclear simply produces less MW per penny invested than renewables do. It's slower to build. The "option C" as you present doesn't work, because it implies an option D: 4MW of clean power, with no dirty MW after X years, for 4X money. The total carbon emitted is simply lower if nuclear is skipped and renewables are prioritised instead.
Remember as well, that nuclear only starts producing once it's fully done. Renewables we can add to the mix today. Every MW of dirty energy saved now has a cumulative effect on the total emitted carbon.
๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ SCOOOOOTLAAAAND FOOOORRREEVVVVAAAAAAHHHH ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ๐ด๓ ง๓ ข๓ ณ๓ ฃ๓ ด๓ ฟ