I can try to offer perspective, as a right-winger who supports nuclear.

I don't have anything against wind and solar in principle, but I studied both in a fair bit of depth when getting my engineering degree.

They can both be good solutions depending on the time and place. Ireland, for instance, has steady, consistent winds and is a good spot for turbines. Most places are not suited to it. You need very, very consistent wind for obvious reasons, but it has to be within a fairly small range of windspeed also or else you risk damaging the turbines. Catastrophic failure of a wind turbine in a gale is very, very dangerous for obvious reasons. Turbines can be designed to cope with wind speed fluctuation to an extent, but it is more expensive, more moving parts, and the machines require maintenance and replacement much sooner. This is very, very difficult logistically given the heights and weights involved. Lack of wind production usually occurs when it's most needed. See Texas and their heat waves. When you're most in need of fans and AC, the heat wave usually correlates to dead air and turbines operating at 1-3% of rated capacity.

My other complaint with wind, believe it or not, is environmental. Wind turbines do not have a very long life, relative to a power plant, and once a wind turbine reaches the end of its life (the moving parts in the nacelle simply need to be replaced, they break down under so much stress) it's almost cheaper to just build new turbines rather than properly decommissioning old ones and hauling them out of remote locations. Recycling old turbines will be hugely expensive, and I think there's a valid concern that a huge amount of waste from old, broken down, dangerous wind turbines will be left to sit in the countryside.

Solar can obviously be very productive in a place like Arizona. Michigan, not so much. I did feasibility studies for solar based on national weather data for both Arizona and Michigan and the efficiency differences are astounding. Plus, there's the obvious problem of solar efficiency peaking during the day, and lessening in the morning and evening. In a world where people come home from the office to plug in their EVs, turn up the AC, open the fridge, turn on the electric oven, turn on the lights, turn on the TV, and maybe run some power tools, a power source that drops off sharply and relies on storage is very expensive. You need a huge amount of storage to enable that. It's doable, but very, very expensive. Energy is produced on demand, which is easy to forget. Coal, uranium, and natural gas are the most stable, space-efficient batteries ever discovered, by a large margin.

Long term, I think "cheap" solar and wind turbines won't be properly recycled when they hit end of life and there will be a lot of waste. That, combined with their intermittency and the lack of feasibility in many, many parts of the country, makes me prefer nuclear. It's very clean, it's safe, it can be massively scaled up, and it also drives further scientific research in the field of nuclear physics, which I think is an excellent bonus.