Nobody is doing it yet because nobody is even close to having too much solar or wind at this point. But that's still likely cheaper in the end.
> And yes, I'm angry, because empirically, on the very grid I use, that is exactly what has happened. We're paying, not the "extortionate" $100 or so nuclear promised, but over $500, because something needs to keep the lights on at moments not convenient for the intermittence.
Nuclear promised power too cheap to meter. That's never materialized. Nuclear promises many things, but so far shows no signs of fulfilling them.
Eg, Hinkley Point C in the UK is infamous for that it's already economically nonsensical and can only exist because the government guaranteed a subsidy. It's already not competitive with modern renewables. That's unlikely to improve in the future.