Power grids need a mix of sources and nuclear is best suited for handling a baseline of power while batteries, wind, and solar handle the flexible portions.
You seem to be working backwards from having decided that we must give enormous handouts to the nuclear industry.
Oil has in all but name stopped being used as an energy source. There is no inherent need for nuclear power, especially not at modern western new build costs of 18-20 cents/kWh.
What you are saying is that renewables and storage will at their most strained be able to handle the peaking load. In California the base load is ~15 GW and peak load 50 GW.
So with your logic the renewables can when they deliver the least handle 35 GW of peak load.
Why would we use extremely expensive nuclear power for "baseload" when the way cheaper and more effective technology literally handles 2x the power when it the most strained?
