> This is precisely /not/ the case, as nuclear power plants are extremely slow to adapt to sudden changes in the power grid Yes it is the case. Nuclear power p

> This is precisely /not/ the case, as nuclear power plants are extremely slow to adapt to sudden changes in the power grid Yes it is the case. Nuclear power plans are typically operated at baseload mode, where they run at their max capacity whenever online, but this is not a necessity of the technology. Shutdown times are long, yes, but you don't shut down a plant to vary its output. Shutdown and start up times are long for many plants, independent of fuel. For example, most steam turbine natural gas and coal plants take more than 12 hours to start up. Since you referred to France as an example, I'll use them too. France's EDF believes they vary their nuclear output by as much as 80 percent twice per day once renewables make up a significant contribution to overall power. They're currently equipped to handle swings as big as 21 gigawatts in under 30 minutes. > you can "usually" cover all your needs with renewables + some dynamic technology and then cover the gaps (no wind no sun) by maxing out your dynamic technologies. This might have high CO2 emissions in the moment, but is still amortized small. The math doesn't work out this way. We'll need to 3x our worldwide energy production by 2050. Developing countries are reaching for coal to do this because they aren't willing to pay the premiums required to make renewable energy work consistently. Energy storage needs to get an order of magnitude cheaper, or we need low carbon ways like nuclear to smooth that output. On the map you shared, the majority of gray areas look like India does, and they're going to use a lot more energy in the next 30 years.