The graph of carbon intensity vs energy source is useful, but unfortunately not the complete picture.
Each energy source has a physical presence on the earth. In the US, how many tens of thousands of square miles would be need to have 20% energy from solar, 20% energy from wind, 20% energy from nuclear, 20% from biomass, etc.
Large wind turbines, say 3 MW and up, need at least 2 km from the nearest residence in flat terrain, more in hilly terrain, such as New England.
A 63 MW ridgeline wind turbine facility taking up 3.5 miles of ridgeline would need at least about 8,000 acres of exclusion area, meaning no one would live there; the fauna would be compromised as well.
10,000 MW of wind turbines envisioned on New England ridgelines would require an area of 1,269,841 acres as exclusion zone.
New England uses 130,000,000 MWh/yr
Production = 10,000 x 8760 x 0.25 = 21,900,000 MWh/yr, or 17% of New England's energy.
In New England, about 30% of the hours of the year, there is not enough wind to turn the rotors, and regarding PV solar, about 65% of the hours of the year, there is minimal or no solar energy.
Many of these hours overlap, i.e., almost ALL traditional generators would be required to be staffed, kept in good working order and fueled (at great cost, which is currently shifted mostly to households, as in Germany), to provide energy to make up any energy shortfalls.
Factory-built modular nuclear plants, about 150 MW each, is the way to go, not those big 1300 MW units, that take 10 years to build. The reactor system and the steam-generator system would each be shipped by rail of barge to the site. Several modules could be arranged side by side for large plants.
Production could be at a rate of 40-50 modules/month, just as Boeing is producing planes at 40-50 per month.