Since the 90's almost every state has increased their fossil fuel based generation even as they have increased solar and wind deployment. Only Illinois kept their fossil fuel generation static while also increasing nuclear generation by 25Million MWhrs (in addition to an extra 30Million MWhrs of mostly wind) But even within their static fossil fuel generation, they still built A LOT of new fossil fuel plants in the form of natural gas plants. Imagine if they had replaced those coal fired-plants with nuclear while also continuing to build out their wind power? The states fossil fuel burn rate for electricity would be <15% as opposed to the 30% it is today and will be in the future. And of course if they had built like 10 new 4GW plants in the 90's then all the surrounding states wouldn't be building fossil fuel plants as they wouldn't need them. They would be free to focus on just Wind/Solar while letting nuclear be their base load.

The 90's are irrelevant when it comes to discussing renewables. The price has dropped by 99% since then. It's literally not even in the same ballpark.

Yeah, we would probably have been in a better place if we built nuclear in the past. Hindsight and everything. Does that mean it's wise to do public investment in nuclear today? Not even a little bit.

We do not live in a world where Solar/Wind can replace fossil fuels, only nuclear can actually do that.

Zero grounds for this being the case.