Solar and wind have these economic properties:

- the marginal cost of energy is zero (once the investment made producing a kWh is free)

- fix costs are almost zero

For the nuclear energy we have the following:

- the marginal cost of energy is low (the cost of the uranium mostly)

- the fix costs are incredibly high (wether the reactor produce or not, the payroll is the same, the maintenance cost are the same, etc...)

So what happens: on sunny or windy days the regulation imposes solar and wind producers to curtail their production. They are forbade to distribute their free kWh, because otherwise the "baseline" producers (nuclear and coal mostly) will have to stop their facilities or sell their kWh at market price. In both cases they would lose money.

Solar and wind intermittency means the following: you cannot switch them on at will. Nuclear plants have the opposite problem: you cannot switch them off without bleeding money.

The solution for solar and wind is: install enough capacity so the worst day of the year (in winter with little wind) you produce enough to cover the needs. If you add storage and/or long distance distribution you can lower the requirement for total installed capacity.

In this context the only solution for nuclear is the following: you lobby the government to make regulations in your favor and cover your losses. Otherwise you bankrupt. On the long run I bet on bankruptcy.