The pro-nuclear argument there goes back to some people at MIT, which was actually talking about the need for "firming sources" of power. Going 100% renewable with just batteries for storage has the problem of rare times when there's an extended lull in wind and lack of sunlight.
But nuclear is not well suited to filling in those gaps. The firming source that makes more sense is hydrogen burned in combined cycle plants (which cost about $1/W, vs $10/W for a nuclear plant). The hydrogen would be made with excess renewables during times of plenty and stored underground, just as natural gas is stored today. With this storage technology (as well as batteries and the like for diurnal storage) renewables provide "synthetic baseload" supply and will likely do it at a cost that nuclear will find difficult to match.
The relevant technological advance here has been low cost electrolyzers, suitable for use with intermittent power sources. These have been getting cheaper quite rapidly, and money is being pumped in to drive them down their experience curves just as PV and wind were driven down theirs previously.
Any additional sources of storage and demand smoothing (transmission, industrial thermal storage, large scale production of synfuels, intermittent CO2 capture) tilts the balance toward renewables as well.