Most analyses show the cheapest way to fully decarbonize will include some baseline sources like nuclear.

Show me a single serious one pls...

The whole concept of baseline production is obsolete. I was the idea of having a steady, cheap base load producer (mostly coal) with a quickly reacting, more expensive peaker (oil or gas) to cover the actual demand.

But coal isn't cheap anymore, neither do we actually want to burn more of it even if it was. And nuclear can't fullfill either role. It's useless as traditional base load in the actual sense of the concept as it's not cheap. It's useless as a peaker.

And renewables plus batteries (both having seen exponentially drops in costs for years now) can actually already cover that base load concept. Get enough capacity to shift the production peak at noon to the demand peak in early evening and you are set (that is in fact what California is already doing).

The actual route to full decarbonisation is that renewables+short-term storage and some long-term storage. And a big part of that long-term storage is power-to-gas (from excess renewable production at peaks) and gas-peakers.

Nuclear can play a role in reducing some of the demand for short-term storage (flattening the curve by always producing at some level) and make electrolysis more economical (not only running with renewable excess power in the day but also at night when demand drops and nuclear still produces). But this is mostly from a perspective of already having nuclear, wanting nuclear for geopolitical reasons and then finding a niche were is can work in the renewable/storage system.

(For reference: RTE, the French grid provider –they have the higher share of nuclear after all–, did a big study about the future of nuclear up to 2050in 2021), modeling a lot of scenarios... Long story short: Renewables, batteries and power-to-gas with peakers is the way to go. Nuclear can work in this setup (at about 35%, 65% renewables) when that's politically demanded.)