It's much more reliable and consistent at generating power. It's not dependent on the sun shining or wind blowing, so you can get the full capacity of generation at all times, making it a better investment for a government trying to support large populations. It also takes up way less land to set up and run.

Though of course, it doesn't have to be one or the other. Solar and wind can supplement nuclear really well.

You can read more about it here: https://changeoracle.com/2022/07/20/nuclear-power-versus-renewable-energy/amp/

You need a baseline for a stable power grid, which renewables alone can't provide.

Renewables should complement nuclear. "And" not "or"

The thing is we've gotten so good at burning coal that the base load cannot realistically be carried by renewables and transmitted to where the load is. Nuclear, with it's challenges, is the only technology that can fill the power vacuum left by base load coal and gas generation stations.

Complaining about down votes is some small dick reddit energy, don't do that in the future. We are on Lemmy now.

Now to answer your question. "Renewables*" are supplementary. Wind/Solar cannot provide baseline power, and will never be able to provide baseline power for the grid. Any kind of magical energy storage you can come up with that would allow renewables to replace a power plant also requires exotic/expensive tech that would be more expensive then Nuclear power and still doesn't address baseline power consumption. This kind of question is also used as a distraction by the fossil fuel industry so that you have countries like Germany replacing nuclear power with coal and strip mining.

Why are they building coal in the first place? Because "renewables" do not produce enough base-line power. If Germany could use magically renewable energy to meet all of their energy demands, they would probably do it, but that isn't the reality. In the future try to avoid framing solar/wind as competitors to nuclear power. Both are needed, and unlike nuclear power which hasn't been built on any scale since the 70's, solar/wind are absolutely used everywhere they can be and if they aren't sufficient in cases like Georgia, Nuclear should 100% be the answer because if it's not used you will have coal or gas instead. "Just asking questions" like that shows you don't understand power-generation and you have fallen for the fossil fuel industries propaganda.

Renewables aren't consistent enough alone, so they need a big consistent buddy to help them out. It could be coal or gas, but we'd much rather have nuclear.

They're not mutually exclusive. A society serious about eliminating fossil fuel use needs both.

The nuclear we built in the 50s is. The technology has come a long way since then, we just haven't built any.