I believe the best argument for nuclear would be conditional, something like "if the challenges of nuclear accidents, high startup costs, and long-term storage can be addressed, nuclear could be a useful part of future clean-energy solutions" Reasoning is as follows:

1) You tend to describe the current state of solar, but solar tech is getting better all the time. Perovskite photovoltaic promises over 25% efficiencies while batteries are getting ever better and cheaper (they may someday be made with commonly available materials also). One could envision rooftop solar/battery backup providing most of residential energy for about $15k/home (hard to beat for safety, reliability, and compactness). One could even imagine photovoltaic capabilities embedded in common materials such as roofing, siding, and street paving. In addition, solar arrays may someday orbit, be highly efficient, in deserts with cheap molten salt storage.

2) I don't see the equivalent scalability of wind, although these days every bit helps.

3) Next Gen nuclear may be at least a good bridge if not ultimate power source, but many questions remain. Like dams, nuclear plants have huge start up costs and possible diminishing returns, all considered. Let's hope Next Gen solves that.

In any case, if solar/batteries get about 100% better, they may be hard for nuclear to beat on many fronts.

What no one ever talks about is the need for portable fuel during wars (ie for tanks, jets). Currently, the only "clean" thing that even comes close to working is hydrogen. Will nations use hydrogen for weaponry in WW 3? Not likely. Unless a super battery is invented, neither solar nor nuclear much help in the portability/energy density department.