Why not both? I feel like at this point anyone who has done any research at all on climate change and its intersection with power generation fully acknowledges

Why not both? I feel like at this point anyone who has done any research at all on climate change and its intersection with power generation fully acknowledges as accepted wisdom that nuclear is best for baseload and scaling and renewables are best for peak-load and have the lowest cost of production (ecologically and economically) at their highest output points. What is unspoken in many discussions is how energy intensive a lot of technologies are that are going to be more necessary as global warming continues /and/ technologies which could help to counteract and perhaps reverse the damage we've already done (atmospheric carbon scrubbers). Having carbon neutral or carbon negative baseload generation in mass quantity is absolutely critical to any realistic plan to deal with climate change, which currently means nuclear as our only option. Given that nuclear (with the correct reactor designs) has better power generation density than competing technologies and superior scaling, if we had 1:1 replacement of existing fossil fuel power plants with nuclear in the US, for instance, we would have enough excess baseload generation to start running atmospheric carbon scrubbers full-time in major cities to counter-act pollution from ICE vehicles and excess energy for various other pollution mitigation strategies (such as water purification / ground pollution abatement).