I'll try to find some more sources later, for now I only have appeal to authority, sorry. I took a lecture on modern grid design for renewables and had a lot of coverage specifically on the state of renewable production, storage, and the pricing.

At a cursory look the numbers online are hard to parse because articles usually are not clear on the specifics they base their costs on, like what sort of stability the renewables can achieve at a stated cost. From what I have seen a lot of numbers do have to be about still varying supply over the day and accross seasons.

There is another argument (that used to be used before this recent price crossover), which maybe makes it easier to accept without up to date numbers: Because of the long build-time, you can buy the batteries 10 years from now, comparing to a nuclear plant that starts construction today. Surely you can see that the battery improvements over the next decades, specifically for grid batteries, will be huge. Currently batteries are still often very similar to car batteries, there are entirely new chemistries that will be in production 10 years down the line.

It's not like I am saying we should scrap ongoing constructions.

Edit:
Low tier source, probably ai generated, no citations, site is funded by the solar industry. This thing claims 100usd/MWh for "sunny" cities.

I also remembered I should mention my point of comparison is anchored in mainland europe, as that is what my lecture and my own focus is centered on. Mainly this means nuclear is more expensive than if you were willing to become dependent on russia for fuel and maintenance, or even make military concessions (like say turkey is). I think a fair optimistic number for nuclear here is 100€/MWh i.e. 10¢/kWh, assuming the country is already familiar in constructing nuclear plants in the not too distant past.