Um. Yes, people do argue it should be all nuclear. Those people can be described as "able to do math"
Well, technically, we ought to have some capacity in plants better suited for peak loading, while nuclear carries the baseload. Current NRC-approved nuke plants aren't great with the big swings in peak loading you commonly see.
But there's no reason we shouldn't have nukes scattered all over this country handling baseload, and different sorts of peaking plants where the different types make sense. Hell, the only way solar's going to get better is if we keep working on it. Solar in sunny places, hydro in places with suitable rivers and reservoirs (most of which, in the US, already have dams in place, IIRC), wind in windy places, clean gas and coal where we must have more power. I don't see a huge reason to cut ANYTHING out, out of hand. Wind and solar aren't going to be carrying baseload for decades to centuries, if ever (solar's only going to make it if we get to space and use powersats for everything up there, IMO; wind? Probably never), but in places where it makes sense to use it as a supplement? Why not? There might be REASONS why the owner might want a windmill generator onsite, or to put solar panels on the roof. Or a farm of either, or both - if it makes sense to him.
Concur with burying power lines, and getting new nuke plants underway, though. And working hard on making fusion work!