a bit of nuclear is kind of necessary to help round out less consistent energy sources a
I really don't get how this argument still flies after all these years. From an economical perspective, nuclear is the worst type of energy generation you can pair renewables with. Putting the still unsolved nuclear waste debate aside for the moment, building nuclear plants is massively expensive and takes a lot of time, which is the exact opposite of what would complement renewables: Cheaply built capacity whose stand-by cost must be as low as possible.
Nuclear reactors need subsidies throughout its lifetime to compete with renewables on price and they need to run constantly.
Renewables already push the energy price into the negatives during peak production, so what you really need is batteries that can smooth out energy prices over a day or bridge a day with bad energy production, as well as energy generation that is cheap to build and keep in reserve, like gas plants that can burn a hydrogen mix.
When it comes to the economics, all nuclear power plants do is drive up the price set by renewables. England may have need for some nuclear power plants to keep up their stockpile of nuclear weapons, but when it comes to energy generation, hydrogen-burning powerplants will fit the need of renewable energy production much better in tge future.