It is not wise to accept numbers from Means without checking their accuracy.
"2 thousand 1.4 GW reactors" let's assume this is correct. 2,000 reactors * 1.4 GW nameplate * 0.85 (CF) = 2,380 GW.
3 MW turbines at 45% CF (that might be a bit low) = 1.35/MW/turbine.
2,380 GW / 1.35 MW = 1,762,963 turbines. My guess is that Means used a low CF number. Probably did not use current performance numbers but averaged in much older technology, much lower hub heights. That's something pro-nuclear advocates often do.
OK. Now, so what? Either way we have a lot of building to do in order to replace fossil fuel plants. But we'd have to do that even if we were going to continue to use fossil fuels. Stuff wears out when it get old. The average lifespan for US coal and nuclear plants is about 40 years. Replacement is an ongoing process. The only question is what do we use as our replacement technology?
US onshore wind is on its way to under $0.02/kWh. European offshore wind should hit $0.03/kWh by 2025. (PV solar is on its way to $0.02/kWh, just in case you were wondering.)
The current nuclear plants being built in the US will produce electricity priced at $0.13/kWh or higher. The turnkey bid for two new reactors at North Anna (Virginia) came in at $0.19/kWh.
Do we want to pay under 5 cents or well over 10 cents for our electricity? That seems an easy question to answer.
Then there are those other inconvenient facts about nuclear reactors. They have been known to go lopsided and spill radiation. Plus we have no acceptable solution for the radioactive waste we have today. Just imagine what it would be like if we had two thousand reactors pooping on us.
There are some other little problems as well. Where would we find acceptable sites for 2,000 reactors? Many countries will not accept reactors inside their borders. And remember, reactors need access to cooling water. Can't put them where they would overheat streams. Need to install them out of 500 yeaf, if not 1,000 year flood plains, above the rising seas and storm surges.
How would we train the thousands and thousands of nuclear engineers we'd need to build that many reactors a year and operate them? It takes only a few months to train a high school graduate to be a functioning wind technician.
There's a reason that the CEOs of the US corporations that own and operate the largest numbers of reactors have stated that they don't see any more reactors built in the US barring some sort of incredible price breakthrough.