I won't pretend to know the the intricacies of electricity markets, but I don't think you have large-scale electricity grid changes without government involvement and subsidies, no matter what energy source you try to transition to.
But if you DO have a problem with subsidies going into nuclear, then you're really going to have issues with subsidies going into renewables, as they make up the vast majority of subsidies (and in the US have doubled since 2016).
You want cheap energy? Well then you better stick to hydrocarbons, because they are abundant and energy-dense. There's a reason why developing countries rely on coal first.
You want clean energy, that's also cheap? Well that's just not going happen considering the poorer energy density and added complexity. If we're adamant that we're going to transition, then somebody has to pay for that difference, and it's going to be the end-user/tax-payer.
Nuclear isn't cheap, and we won't build more without subsidies, but it still provides the most energy-dense option amongst the renewable options. It also happens to be great for baseload energy, is safe and reliable, and is not reliant on geography to work. If we're going all in the transition, it needs to not only be a part of the mix, I think it needs to lead the way.