"Nuclear and renewables are not 1:1 match or comparison.
Different energy sources for different requirements. You want a good mix, not bad mix. Things like periodical negative electricity prices (in Europe) increase the net cost of energy. Excessively high night-time electricity is also harmful (industries, and many other uses require 24/7 energy).
Mid-day is off-peak for solar in many markets, and they curtail their output so that they don't oversupply. As there is more solar built, more and more will be curtailed.
Both nuclear and solar would need a hydrolysis system that was economical even if not run 24x7 in order to utilize their supply-demand mismatches. This is the biggest road block to hydrogen production with the GWh of "free" electricity that we could currently be generating in the spring in California, but currently just don't use.
This is completely wrong. There is a certain level of electrical production that is needed 24/7:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load
As the data for the province of Ontario (Canada) shows, nuclear plants are very good at this (click on "Supply"):
* http://www.ieso.ca/power-data
* http://www.ieso.ca/Power-Data/Supply-Overview/Transmission-C...
As I mentioned in another comment, Ontario could stand to build another 2500-3000MW with of nuclear to deal with the base load, and the variable demand could then largely be dealt with using hydro-electric.
Ontario has quite a few turbine farms itself, spread over a reasonable wide area, and even then variability is high:
* http://www.ieso.ca/localContent/map/default.htm
And given that weather systems travel west-to-east, any neighbours are going to have lulls at roughly the same time as Ontario.
Perhaps in other jurisdictions things can work out, but I see it as a non-starter here.
Nuclear provides steady source of electricity 24/7.
If you want same from renewable, you must add the cost of energy storage and the cost of overcapacity.