> which will have to be part of our energy mix for the foreseeable future
That is only true as long it is cheaper than nuclear. The usage of natural gas is a mix of economic and political choices, and depending on the country you can get a very different choices.
Modern nuclear plants can do this with control rods, but the fixed and sunk costs makes it prohibiting expensive. It is simply more economically to keep them running, even when wind/solar is producing. Changes in fuel costs could incentivize a more economical use, through that would only work if nuclear were made economical competitive compared to natural gas in the first place.
If we look at a map like https://www.electricitymap.org and imagine the carbon intensity to be a real economical costs then it would be a relative simple matter to determine how high those costs would need to be to make nuclear competitive against burning fossil fuels.
If one were to introduce a layered approach (eg adding in a battery storage layer), I wonder if this argument is reduced?
EG: When times of peak consumption out-paces the plant, it draws from battery system. When consumption is less than production, the batteries are recharged.
Pumped hydro, pumped heat, flywheels, batteries are all working solutions. Batteries are still expensive and need to be replaced every 10-15y. In order to use more nuclear and renewables in the mix, storage becomes a necessity.
It can suppelement gas or whatever in the power mix. Just keep'em running and adjust the output in the designed operating range, pump water uphill or spin up flywheels otherwise.
That is only true as long it is cheaper than nuclear. The usage of natural gas is a mix of economic and political choices, and depending on the country you can get a very different choices.