> Can you give an example of such a country

Not sure what you want to say with your list, but Nuclear shares the low carbon aspects of renewables but is by definition not one.

This is the list of European countries looking to build nuclear power announced in the last few years:

- France

- Finland

- United Kingdom

- Poland

- Hungary

- Czech Republic

Of these countries only Finland is also strongly pushing renewables. The UK is a bit weird.

> So I'm not sure why you feel you need to pick on them.

Because France is failing bad on electricity policy. Their existing electricity system is mostly made up of old nuclear plants that are nearing their end of life and will get increasingly unreliable. It's not clear how France will replace them in a reasonable time frame with new nuclear power plants (long build times are a huge issue and to few are announced to replace the existing reactors), leading to it becoming a net-importer from net-exporter (we're already seeing this happening). This is one of the factors currently driving up electricity prices around Europe and will be a major strain on the European grid. Because most nuclear power plants are old around the western world, this a worrying not just for France which bet hard on nuclear and should be very glad that it did at the time.

There are also many other countries which are basically making little effort to move away from fossil fuels for electricity and that's worse for the environment (but better for the grid). But they're obviously doing the wrong thing in regards to climate. France is not obvious.

> Complex problems require complex solutions.

Yes. But the pricing behavior of nuclear plants compared to wind and solar is extremely similar, leading to similar issues and concern. Most of the cost is capex, little opex or marginal. This makes overbuilding unattractive, especially when the capex is very high as in nuclear leading to either requiring power plants with low capex, high marginal costs (like gas), expansion of storage (historically mostly in the form of hydro) or relying on an otherwise more diversified grid to even things out. And then it becomes much easier to compare pricing as compared to e.g. gas plants.

My impression is that often the broad strokes of policy are (while informed by deep analysis) more formed by political beliefs and motivations than careful analysis. When germany started to deploy solar & wind with the goal of making them a significant portion of the power grid, this was in hindsight a good move but not supported by the facts. Both were very expensive (with no expectation of them getting so cheap) and no grid operator thought that the grid could handle more than a few percent of renewables. The move away from nuclear from the 70s onwards was also very much based on public opinion & fears, not on quantifiable data on risks. The move toward nuclear before that was also born out of hopes for very cheap electricity ("too cheap to meter") that didn't really pan out as much as hoped.

> I AM NOT SAYING NUCLEAR EVERYWHERE.

I am reading your comment as saying it's not nuclear vs. renewables, both can work in some circumstances. And I believe that due to production characteristics on the power grid, it is a nuclear vs. renewables issue in the grid. Additionally, that countries are looking at nuclear options that are unlikely to work (keepin' an eye on the historical trend for construction) will downscale expansion of renewables (if you're planning for 30% nuclear, you don't need as much renewables) and thus lead to more fossil fuel capacity renaming in use.

It's not out of the question that smaller, more modular reactors built in a big factory somewhere might be able to improve things for nuclear power plants and make them reasonable options in terms of build times and costs, but I'm doubtful.