This doesn't show what you think it does. It shows that there was not enough gas-fired (and battery) capacity to offset solar and wind drop-off. Nuclear was driven off because nuclear is strictly base-load only and cannot ramp up fast enough to cope with the variability of peak-load -- under those circumstances nuclear _must_ disconnect from the grid (or part of the grid must be isolated from the rest).
I would think that a trivial solution for that is to create devices that can supply variable demand. (For example by heating up water somewhere in the ocean.) If the power created by nuclear exceeds base-line demand, create artificial demand to level out the valleys. By strategically wasting power, nuclear can supply a larger share of the demand.
I know it's a shamed topic around here, or it seems like it, however I find the Bitcoin mining aspect of chewing up these "needed to be wasted" loads the one true positive of it (Bitcoin).
Yeah, it's changed from its seeming origins. Yes it's number go up! But being able to turn that extra juice, that NEEDS to go somewhere back into 'cash' is certainly on my list of positives.
Obviously, it's lower than batteries and lower or on par with storing as sand/thermal (I guess location and season dependant on this one).
One other perk, now that I rant about thermal, is being able to absorb this extra energy, do some calculations and then provide (location/season) heat. Seems like the calculation aspect is the 3 birds one stone, to me.
