https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-c...
under “Load following”
Nuclear is "base load" through and through. Yes it would be awkward to manage spinning nuclear plants up and down if you were targeting 100%, but France manages pretty well with 70% of energy coming from nuclear so it is an actually existing counterpoint.
How is that embarrassing state "pretty well"? They use dirty power from their neighbours to manage their support holes created through that narrow minded energy infrastructure. Just like every summer, they've been struggling due to too hot rivers and now those "cracks" in those reactors...France has shown that focusing on nuclear is sheer stupidity. Stupidity funded by the French taxpayer btw and it goes only downwards from here since their old fleet is not getting younger and everything they build takes too long and costs too much.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/electricity/news/nuclear-po...
https://jeromeaparis.substack.com/p/edfs-woes-are-a-bigger-l...
Nuclear has the opposite problem of wind/solar in that they need to be run at 100% capacity basically all the time because of their absurd building costs and low operating costs. Building enough nuclear to support that load that then sits idle 95% of the year would be absurdly expensive.
You could of course then use that idle capacity to make say methane [0] which is what we currently use to heat our homes but then why spend 3x [2] the money to make that storage when you can just use wind/solar to do it?
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-to-gas
[1]: https://mashable.com/article/polar-vortex-2021-cold-temperat...
[2 in the US]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source#...