Ask Lemmygrad

Renewables mostly reduce the demand in methane and hydropower when there is sunshine and wind, while nuclear competes with heavy thermal such as coal, oil, and waste.

I would assume any energy plan for a habitable earth would not rely on coal, oil and waste. You are describing how nuclear is used today, which is fine and I generally agree. But the context is the future of energy infrastructure.

A nuclear power plant can almost never be replaced with renewables, and closing it is a bad idea until storage is sufficient to smooth out the duck curve

This is more or less what I said in my original comment, nuclear should be expanded in small quantities, as needed, but the bulk of any new energy infrastructure should be renewables. I do disagree that the only way to smooth the duck curve is with nuclear. Infrequent brownouts, rationing, and enough redundancy and storage, each with their own issues granted, could do the same thing.

My comment was more directed towards a subset of people who think nuclear should become the major source of energy production.