In general, generating electricity as close to where you need it is a better idea (because of loss from transmission).
They are not completely reliable for backup, which I think is an under-appreciated point, but nuclear can provide any backup necessary (which i suspect wouldn't be as large as you might think).
point is that they need backup from either nuclear, coal, oil or gas to be reliable, but the very people who want more renewable is normally against nuclear.
Wind and solar is less than 1% of the worlds energy consumption and not expected to be more than 3-4% in 2030 exactly because its not reliable and the more renewable you build the more expensive it becomes as it need one of those or multiple backup sources mentioned above to be reliable.
It's funny how this is brought up again and again. Actually the one energy form that needs the most "backup" (a very imprecise word) is nuclear. Because nuclear is very slow to adjust you need either massive overproduction and somehow "dump" this when you don't need it (the reason why Belgium had all their highways brightly lit, I remember being amazed by this when we travelled during the night between countries) or what you call "backup" from e.g. gas.
If you have a large enough modern grid (and that is not the case right now due to massive underinvestments) renewable good power 100% with very little overproduction (you obviously need capability i.e. overcapacity). There have been several studies on this (some are mentioned here https://www.vox.com/2015/6/9/8748081/us-100-percent-renewabl...)
Those studies are nothing but wishful thinking and I would challenge you to point to exactly where they prove it's possible in anything but theory. If it was that easy Germany or Denmark would have done them already.
There is a world of difference between being able to produce energy when you want it and then having to wait for the right conditions so it is being brought up again and again because it's a relevant difference. France has no problem making it work.
Please point me to the storage technology that works at scale and economically. We are not even close to having anything that can do that. Furthermore the reason why oil, gas and coal and to a lesser extent nuclear are so crucial for a modern infrastructure is that they can transported and move around.
On top of that especially oil, but also gas and coal and to a lesser but extent but still important contribution the dual usage of those sources makes them superior and foundational to all the other things. You can't even make windmills or solar without the use of oil and coal.
So downvote me all you want. Renewables aren't even close to being serious contenders to anyone who want to live in modern society.
In general, generating electricity as close to where you need it is a better idea (because of loss from transmission).
They are not completely reliable for backup, which I think is an under-appreciated point, but nuclear can provide any backup necessary (which i suspect wouldn't be as large as you might think).