And, renewables don't kill people either way.

Nukes are not competing with carbon sources. Against renewables (+storage, eventually) nukes lose on every axis: safety, capex, opex, construction time, other environmental impact (e.g. U vs other mining).

There is no place where nukes come out ahead, so no place where building more is the right choice. Continuing to operate them where they are can be OK, for now.

There are locations where renewables cannot provide base load all year round.

Those places can continue burning cheap NG as they do today, during times when renewables flag, and upgrade to cheap synthetic fuel, imported from the tropics, as it becomes available.

Whatever renewables + storage they build reduces their operating cost.

Ah yes, it is well known that storing intermittent renewable power is a solved problem.

What is this "cheap NG" you refer to? In places like Japan, NG is anything but cheap, because it has to be imported. Plus, where are you going to buy it from? The main supplier near here is Russia.

There's nothing at all "cheap" about NG.

It costs no more to import NG to Japan than to anywhere else. NG is everywhere cheaper than the same BTUs from oil, the older standard.

In the future, the fuel will be synthetic, and cheaper than NG.

Again, where are you going to get it from? Russia? And, no, it's not cheaper than oil, since the transportation process is so expensive and difficult. It's a gas, remember? In case you haven't noticed, Germany's NG has been severely curtailed because of the troubles with Russia, and they're facing a cold winter without much heat. So again, I ask you: where exactly is all this "cheap NG"?

Maybe do some research? NG is transported in liquified form, in the millions of tons, routinely. Germany just constructed a new LNG terminal in record time, to use LNG so imported.

Liquifying and shipping NG is far more expensive than just pushing it through a pipeline. Why do you think the NordStream pipelines were even built?

And again, for the nth time I'm asking you here, where the fuck are you going to get it from? If it was so easily available, Europe wouldn't be screaming right now, and no one would care about Russia.

Ackshually the death toll for wind farms is higher than nuclear.

Mostly it's people falling off them when installing or maintaining them.

It's higher than nuclear accidents. I have never seen a comparison that includes nuclear installation, and it would be moot anyway, because most of the nuclear plants were built by different techniques people use today.

Death toll of wind is higher only if you artificially set uranium mining and refining deaths and concrete, steel, and industrial plumbing construction deaths to zero.