But the use-case here is the generation of fuel. That's not a case where you require base load. You can just simply generate less fuel when there's less power.

But the use-case here is the generation of fuel. That's not a case where you require base load. You can just simply generate less fuel when there's less power. That does affect the profitability of the plant, but if the plant is connected to the grid, it could still get some power from other areas. And remember that by the time these new small, modular nuclear power plants come online, wind and solar will have become even cheaper. They will also be a larger part of the grid, which will mean there's more opportunity to get paid for load balancing services. I think these kind of plants is one of the things that will help us get to 100% renewable. Not only can you balance out some of the demand, you could even put aside some fuel, and if it's one of those rare days that there's little wind or solar over a whole continent, you could burn some of that fuel in a gas power plant, and we already have those. That is, old gas power plants could be a part of the solution if you keep them around to burn renewable gas to balance the grid. I have nothing against nuclear. It's safer than most people think and all that. But I really don't think we'll get the next generation reactors we need - for a low enough price - to solve the worlds energy problems before renewable alternatives and various load balancing solutions become cheap enough. And I really think renewables are the ultimate solution, especially once you start putting the wind turbines out to sea where the wind is more stable, and it doesn't affect wildlife and humans as much. Uranium mining is still quite dirty. So is mining for metals/minerals for renewable solutions, but they're generally recyclable. Renewables leads to a world where we don't need to continuously dig up stuff for energy.