There are costs other than complexity which must be considered before selecting a power source. For example, energy density per unit area. Nuclear has a much smaller footprint. Also the cost, maintnence, lifetime, and environmental impact of batteries required during night time/occluded operation is also not trivial, as is accommodating for unpredictable outputs due to weather.
Nuclear is slow to operate, so it needs batteries to handle peaks during day. Nuclear can provide baseline power only.
Solar panel can be installed at roofs, so it can double as shelter, and power loss due to transmission can be lowered. Backup gravitational battery can provide backup power on site for short (hours) periods of time, to cheaply offset energy from peak of production at noun to peak of consuming at evening. Efficiency of solar panels can be improved up to 80%, so they can reduce need for air cooling.
Agreed, Also diversity of power is a win. But I agree, with the OP comment here, the simplicity of Solar is hard to get past, but sometimes it just won't work for a given application.
