Nuclear is easier to dispatch than building enough storage. Fossil peakers are just cheaper and we are still operating on what brings most profit, not what's be

Nuclear is easier to dispatch than building enough storage. Fossil peakers are just cheaper and we are still operating on what brings most profit, not what's best for us long term. Thing is, if you do have option for new pumped hydro, go for it. It's usually less problematic than normal hydrogeneration, and it's great storage system. I'm all for it where possible. For smoothing lead-following reactors, the storage tech we have is pretty good. More can be gained by moving inelastic but high inertia sinks to nuclear power - various material processing (steel, aluminum, etc.) as well as making green hydrogen (necessary not just for storage, but also for smelting - renewables really don't look good on green hydrogen without nuclear) and so on. My imaginary best option is switching the financials of power generation to benefit any fully dispatchable sources - This is easier to do with nuclear or classic hydropower, but such categorisation would also allow for renewable Virtual Power Plants (i.e. mixed renewables and storage, possibly with some demand control). At the same time this would cut down on instability caused by peak renewable production cratering prices for everyone else. At the same time, let's target for grid that has oversupply and switchable sinks like green hydrogen, climate-neutral fuels for things that can't be easily powered by grid, etc.