How often will we need to replace wind turbine blades as they wear out, solar panels as their yields lower over time, etc. compared to SMR's - you build them, m

How often will we need to replace wind turbine blades as they wear out, solar panels as their yields lower over time, etc. compared to SMR's - you build them, maintain them, and they'd probably last way longer than these other renewable energy capture devices - probably on the timescale of hydroelectric power, if not longer I would imagine. Seems more environmentally friendly to build SMRs instead of fiberglass blades and rare earth sourced solar panels. I don't know why people are so anti-nuclear - it allows for a guaranteed base output of power 24/7 - something that both current battery tech and the unreliable output of solar/wind power can't provide. Do we want to have fields and fields of wind turbines and solar panels along with the electrical infrastructure needed to carry that power towards urban centers, or do we want conveniently located SMRs close enough to urban areas so they can likely sit nearby or within short distance of existing substations? Some people who say "But battery tech is improving! We just have to wait it'll be here soon and wind/solar will work!" are the same people that want the whole ICE supply chain removed and replaced with electric ASAP/immediately without any realistic regard for what is actually required for such a drastic change to how people consume energy. We'll wait for battery tech to arrive while we'll have rolling blackouts and grid problems but at least we're saving the planet... somehow. Seems very cut and dry to me, but I guess radiation is scary for people. From what I understand, SMRs have minimal to no risk of radiation leakages in a meltdown type situation, but I'll leave that for the experts.