This is not a technical problem, but nuclear plants already struggle to compete on cost of energy when running 24/7.
Every minute such a plant runs at less than nominal output, those already bad economics grow worse.
But yes, it absolutely makes more sense to run those plants 24/7 at 100% capacity.
And we have base-load that matches this reliable generating capacity very well.
The 40%-60% base load absolutely should be provided by nuclear if you don't have hydro (and even if you have hydro, some nuclear still makes sense).
The remainder should almost certainly be a mix: some more reliable nuclear, some storage, some wind, some solar.
So either you restrict the amount of solar that can be produced or you subsidize the Nuclear prices. Both solutions are increasing prices for idiological reasons. If we do that might as well invest in solutions that are on exponential trajectories, like solar and battery.
The whole baseload argument when talking about renewables is a strawman. Both intermittent (like solar and wind) and constant output (like Nuclear) are baseload technologies, despite working very differently. Both require over provisioning, on demand sources or storage. It does not make any sense to bet on a solution that despite significant subsidise over almost 70 years has failed to produce any exponential count reduction, if the other solution is on an exponential curve right now.
Didn't know that the requirement for electricity to always be available despite weather conditions is a strawman
For mis-designed electricity markets, see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000–2001_California_electrici...
It can be fixed easily by giving priority to reliable producers and only allowing intermittent producers in once the reliable producers are used up.
> The whole baseload argument when talking about renewables is a strawman
No. It is actually essential, because intermittent renewables cannot reliably supply electricity, yet we need reliable electricity supply.
Intermittents are not baseload technology, because they cannot reliably supply electricity when needed.
Key word: running 24/7. Which neither solar nor wind can do.
> Every minute such a plant runs at less than nominal output, those already bad economics grow worse.
Is that why countries that boast "we have so much renewable energy now" tend to import electricity from stable sources (nuclear and hydro) the moment there's a long period of overcast skies with little to no wind?