[belorn]

For places that can rely on exclusively solar, solar and battery start to make more sense than nuclear. Currently it is profitable to have around 3-4 hours of 80% of capacity, which is economical if you get a daily charge cycle it where in the day you charge them and during the night you get paid by discharging almost 100%.

Wind is a very different beast in term of charge cycles and capacity requirements. We are nowhere near having it economical to install batteries with multiple weeks long capacity that get a charge cycle of a few times a year. For that you need stored energy technology like reverse hydro or hydrogen production, and they are are quire bit away from being economical sustainable. Reverse hydro has many issues and has resulted in a declining optimism in the last decade, and using wind to produce hydrogen cost about 6 times as much as any other hydrogen production method. And we don't currently burn hydrogen for power as it is already prohibitively expensive. Still it seems as our best bet for storage, which should give a hint how the economics are between nuclear and storage.