The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. What is your solution then, burn coal and oil? Nuclear has a great role to fill the gap reliably.
You know, those that lately achieved the milestone in California of being the largest producer from sundown to midnight in terms of GWh.
What is it with the nuclear cult and this false dichotomy?
Is it because you need to justify spending 10x as much money on new built nuclear power coming online in the 2040s, which is too late to solve anything relevant?
Nuclear power is the worst ”peaker” imaginable.
Lets calculate running Vogtle at a 10-15% capacity factor like a traditional fossil gas peaker.
The electricity now costs $1-1.5/kWh. That is Texas grid meltdown prices. That is what you are yearning for.
What is the environment impact for each, per watt?
Generally these questions are centered around people trying to justify nuclear power by relying on the "long life". Thinking they will still be useful on the market in 100 years time.
For both batteries and solar panels if lifetime is the most central issue you can optimize for that. There are solar panels with 40 year warranties available and more costly batteries optimized for longer cycle life.
But the market is already choosing what to invest in. Good enough beats imaginary perfect every single time.