They would probably use nuclear for base load, until something better is found. But it won't "replace" solar.

Nuclear has few advantages over solar.

Solar + batteries.

Image from this article

~$1000/kW vs $6 - 10,000/kW in 2018, it is cheaper today; projected costs to drop to as low as $560/kW in 2050.

Add in the ~$150/kWh of grid scale storage with the associated switchgear to connect it to the grid.

For a 10MW + 20MWh solar system; you are looking at approx $13,000,000 + install costs of probably $2-3,000,000.

I'm on board with whatever the scientists conclude. I'm not a scientist, so if they say nuclear, I'm behind nuclear. If they say solar, I'm behind solar. If they say wind, I'm behind wind. Trust scientists. If you're trained in science, definitely verify - there's some bad science out there for sure. But if you have no expertise in the area, just trust the scientific community.

This might not be the case anymore, now that solar is dirt cheap.

But, as another commenter said, I'm onboard with any decision that scientists (including both energy and climate sciences) and engineers come up with working together.

I don't know a single who would, including myself.