People who complain about a statistic without mentioning its severity in context are often only using it as rhetorical currency rather than actually caring about the issue itself. If they're accepting of the same outcome in other contexts you can safely ignore them.
Wind complements solar well in terms of peak generation. In some markets, wind + solar + hydro + existing demand pricing could already manage current consumption requirements. Hydro is perfect for base load and for peaking.
As a bridge fuel natural gas is also perfectly capable for base load and peaking, and due to pricing has already been rapidly supplanting coal and oil. Longer term, pumped hydro where available, or even technologies like syngas could be used to store peak wind/solar capacity to generate when the resource does not meet need. Along with a better long-distance grid, it takes no stretch of the imagination for renewables to meet virtually all current demand, without even accounting for huge advances in new technologies.
Peak population is coming, and with increasing energy efficiency/conservation, we can very well expect peak energy usage to precede peak population.
Apples and oranges, really. Wind/solar/gas are best suited for peak production. Nuclear is best suited for base load production. While technology can change down the road, they currently aren't directly in competition with each other.