Nuclear generation can't react to changes in demand very fast and so doesn't play well with large amounts of wind generation. It's ok with solar, because you can predict night-time 8 hours in advance, which is optimal for ramping up nuclear generation.
Combined-cycle gas turbines, while they do use fossil fuels, are the most carbon-efficient way to get electricity from fossil fuels, and can quickly react to changes in demand.
So while I agree with the point about not getting rid of nuclear too fast, both nuclear and natural gas have their place in moving to mostly renewables. Natural gas could especially be important if it allows other fossil-fuel burning, eg for transport, to be replaced by electricity generated with non-zero but low carbon emissions.
40% of power in CA is generated with natural gas. If you can close the nuclear power plant and replace it with the equivalent amount of solar and wind, you should just keep the nuclear plant open and build that amount of solar and wind anyways.
Solar and wind are pervasive and cheap in California. If nuclear is no better for the environment and more expensive, why should it keep running?
The whole "profit" thing is a way to manage scarce resources, i.e. minimize waste. That's exactly what we want.
You're right that for basic needs like shelter, energy, food, and water, we shouldn't accept that some people might have to go without. So we have tipped the scales through programs like section 8, progressive energy rates, EBT, etc to get that outcome will still seeing other resources efficiently used.