It may be valid to say that to get to zero fossil fuels in energy generation requires nuclear, so you don't need to denigrate solar and wind. This does not invalidate the other points.

Hydro is useful as it utilises existing running water and the plants last a long time. However, the locations you can place them are limited by nature. The UK only has potential for 2.4 GW of future hydro.

https://www.hydropower.org/country-profiles/united-kingdom

The low price and maintenance of wind allows it to cover most electricity generation, especially offshore wind. Wind has the potential to cover 35 % of America's electricity. The variation in wind speed can be accounted for by oversupply of wind or batteries.

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/wind-vision

Solar provides a very predictable and cheap supply of energy, although power is reduced during the winter and non-existent at night. Solar also benefits that it can be placed on almost any flat or sloped roof.

The prices you stated are incorrect LCOE median prices are: nuclear ($69 / MWh), onshore wind ($ 50 / MWh), utility solar PV ($56 / MWh), hydro ($72 / MWh).

https://www.iea.org/reports/projected-costs-of-generating-electricity-2020

The solution to green energy is either nuclear or a lot of batteries. Although batteries do not need to be electrochemical, they can be hydrogen, water, gravitational etc.

The debates provided by Peterson, Carlson, etc. are bad faith. They are not actually arguing for nuclear, they are arguing against solar and wind to appeal to a base hesitant of change. Ultimately, the real debate about nuclear is cultural, not economic or global warming oriented. i.e. do people feel safe living near a nuclear power plant, what does the long term disposal of radioactive waste look like.