[mlsu]

Solar is unique in that it reliably "trips" for extensive periods every day and seasonally. It is also unique in that it does not take fuel that can be stored.

Solar cannot act as the backup to a nuclear power plant. Whereas a nuclear power plant can (and does) act as the backup to solar.

I'm grossing up to make the point that after about 60-70% solar penetration, the circle cannot be squared without massive investment either in batteries or in distribution, a fact which seems to never quite fully make it into cost comparisons between nuclear and solar such as those being made in this thread.

[qwytw]

> Whereas a nuclear power plant can (and does) act as the backup

But AFAIK you can't just turn nuclear plants on and off again based on demand like you can do with gas. So it's not really a backup.

[pfdietz]

The usual dishonest argument nuclear advocates make is to assume batteries are used to get renewables to 100% of the grid. You are doing it there.

But batteries are not the ideal storage technology for all storage use cases. It turns out that e-fuels like hydrogen are much, MUCH better for some cases, like seasonal leveling, even though the round trip efficiency isn't great.

It will likely be the case that a 100% RE grid ends up being considerably cheaper than a nuclear powered grid.

Nuclear backing up solar is a completely stupid idea, btw. The economics don't work at all.