None of what you have posted is surprising. None of it changes the equation dictating build schedule. None of it favors nukes in any role.

There is no need for "ten times" overbuild. Instead, you just need a backup generator you can fuel at need.

Any tropical country can put up a solar farm and start exporting synthetic fuel. Until those are built, we can burn NG in shortfalls, at radically reduced average total carbon output.

Building storage after you have enough renewable overbuild to charge it from, in normal conditions, incrementally reduces duty cycle on the generator. So, for a utility, a 1.5x overbuild and a few hours' 1x storage means they hardly ever run it. A transmission line to a neighboring utility cuts the fuel bill more, and makes selling excess easier.

At home, with a grid tie-in, you need the generator only when a tree takes out the lines, and you can sell excess most days. A low duty-cycle backup generator should be, above other considerations, cheap. Don't you have one? They are cheap.

In the future, 10x overbuild will be much cheaper than today, and would reduce your residual backup fuel bill if you care enough, and you can sell more power, most days.

The correct course for a public utility is to focus on exceeding 1x average renewable generating capacity, and then add a bit of very dispatchable and quickly built storage--batteries. After that, incrementally overbuild, and add cheapest usable storage--not batteries--still using the combined-cycle gas turbine at need. The more overbuild and storage they add, the better things get. Maybe add some fuel synthesis equipment and tankage, and sell excess beyond local tankage.

For home, keep your generator and/or grid tie-in ready. At 13 kW nameplate, you can usefully add some battery to carry you past peak evening price and, with a bit more, through most nights.

Your neighbors with 4 kW are substantially reducing their power bill. There was no expectation of anything else.