Again, you CANNOT (and I will repeat for emphasis) CANNOT use solar OR wind power as your baseline power source. They aren't dependable sources.
Do you mean "baseload" that refers to the availibility of electricty at any time?
You know that when you turn on a light the electricity comes from different sources? Because "baseload" electricy is a function of the grid, not a single generating source.
Besides, why wouldn't you want a variety of supply sources as we move into the future. Obviously coal is a poor choice for its carbon legacy and nuclear could be better if it was done properly however it's design flaws leave a serious radionuclide legacy.
I think what you mean is that Nuclear power "better matches the baseload requirements" of the grid, which is sort of true. Solar thermal has made some phenomenal improvements which allows it to match baseload requirements and wind scales much better than Nuclear due to it's modularity.
Anyone telling you they are is selling natural gas or some sort of petroleum product.
Actually the 2005 Energy Policy act repealed the 1935 Public Utilities Holding Companies Act that was put in place to prevent a re-occurance of the great depression.
Now procuring companies (i.e oil companies) have half a billion dollars worth of subsidies for proposing "pre-approved" reactor designs, even if they don't build it, and a 1.8 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit if they do. So it's actually the other way around, at least if you look at who benefits financially according to the law.
Still it is a good way for the oil companies to deplete the economic base of the U.S at the expense of Nuclear power, so you maybe misdirecting your anger a bit.
Nuclear IS a dependable, steady source that infrastructure engineers can PLAN for.
Except that the availabilty and utilization of the reactor is not dependable.
And the only reason nuclear has any sort of price comparison to solar or wind to begin with is the fact that, under the guidance of enviro-nuts, they've basically tarriffed the entire process, from proposition through decomission into the stratosphere
The breakdown of U.S energy research and development budget reported by the US DOE is roughly 60% for nuclear, 25% to fossil fuels and 15% to SUSTAINABLE energy sources. Four times the financial support than sustainable sources and over double the support of coal and oil.
Require the kinds of multi-billion dollar investments (see bribes) for wind or solar plants that are now required for nuclear and watch the price of those options skyrocket too.
Wall Street doesn't like nuclear because its a risky investment, investors don't like that sort of risk, solar and wind are way ahead simply because the return on investment is much better than nuclear, i.e. Solar and wind satisfies the criteria that makes an investment "economically viable" nuclear power is only "economically viable" with the substantial regulatory support of the Price Anderson Act.