For solar I believe it's profitable without subsidies in most parts of the world by now. It's the fastest growing power source by far worldwide and it wouldn't be if it had to be financed by subsidies.

I don't know enough about wind to say either way about that.

But both wind and solar have the benefit of being able to just abandon the plants if they turn out to lose money. Which you of course cannot do with a nuclear plant.

Rancho Seco in the US has had a taxpayer financed security crew for 36 years without producing any electricity. That costs eats away at the profits (if any) generated by the plant when it was operational, but nobody keeps track of that.

The costs are not relevant to the nuclear operator and are not retroactively counted as costs for the electricity, since the government pays.

But they pay with our money. And our children's money. And their children's money.