[mrpopo]

> But nuclear power is also not really suited for load following.

This is mostly a myth. The actual reason nuclear powerplants run at max power all the time is that nuclear fuel is very cheap compared to operating costs, therefore it is more economical to follow load variations on the other plants.

Here is an example of high-amplitude and relatively high-speed variation (10GW over a few hours) : https://twitter.com/TristanKamin/status/1102625880520699911

What is true is there is little expertise in load following with nuclear powerplants because it is uncommon. Areva has been developing and exporting ALFC (Advanced Load Following Control) technology for automated load-following operations.

https://new.sfen.org/rgn/expertise-nucleaire-francaise-suivi...

https://www.powermag.com/flexible-operation-of-nuclear-power...

All in all, load following with nuclear is a technologically much easier problem to solve than high-scale energy storage.

[natmaka]

There are safety-related limits to this flexibility: one cannot at will reduce/augment the "power" (thermal) delivered by a reactor. After each small set of tweaks a somewhat durable stable state (or a complete shutdown) must be respected. In the proposed SFEN document it corresponds to the mentions "palier d’au moins deux heures" (at least 2 hours between tweaks) and "deux fois par jour" (max two tweaking sequences per day).

The real (observed and useful) ability to follow load at a useful extent is offered by the float (tens of reactors simultaneously active => more flexibility towards tweaking limitations).

At this game nothing beats a gas turbine (hydraulic dams are serious contenders).

[pas]

This is a known trade off between safety and convenience. Arguably we have enough expertise/data to move the set-point toward convenience with better automation.

[natmaka]

Satisfying our needs without any major-risk-inducing piece of equipment producing long-lived 'hot' waste seems even better to me.

[_fizz_buzz_]

I am not saying load following isn’t possible, I was trying to say nuclear isn’t ideal for load following. It’s definitely not comparable to a gas turbine.

[mrpopo]

Then, why aren't you applying the same logic to solar and wind? They are less than ideal for load following. Of course, there are technological solutions (energy storage), but I just pointed out that there are technological solutions for nuclear load following as well, and they are already there, far simpler, cheaper, don't require a huge new supply chain, ...