Hydro is sort of wasted as "baseload" source, because it's so readily adjustable, i.e. it is good as "dispatchable" source.
Nuclear is the typical baseload source, as adjusting output is not that fast.
But of course, if your hydro is really plentiful, then it doesn't matter.
Take the case of Norway and Denmark: Denmark has wind energy, which is very erratic. Norway has lots of hydro power which is perfectly dispatchable. When there's wind and not much consumption, Norway can buy wind electricity cheaply from Denmark (in fact the price may be negative because the excess production has to be sunk somewhere). The hydro plants are stopped. When there's no wind and there's a lot of consumption, Norway can sell electricity at a very good price to Denmark.
So, capacity is not the only thing that matters, dispatchability is important, and Norway clearly has the upper hand here because its wattage capacity is of a better kind.
Nuclear is the typical baseload source, as adjusting output is not that fast.
But of course, if your hydro is really plentiful, then it doesn't matter.
Take the case of Norway and Denmark: Denmark has wind energy, which is very erratic. Norway has lots of hydro power which is perfectly dispatchable. When there's wind and not much consumption, Norway can buy wind electricity cheaply from Denmark (in fact the price may be negative because the excess production has to be sunk somewhere). The hydro plants are stopped. When there's no wind and there's a lot of consumption, Norway can sell electricity at a very good price to Denmark.
So, capacity is not the only thing that matters, dispatchability is important, and Norway clearly has the upper hand here because its wattage capacity is of a better kind.