I want to note that the intermittency problems for a 100% renewable grid are not significantly different from a 90% renewable + 10% nuclear grid. Nuclear does

I want to note that the intermittency problems for a 100% renewable grid are not significantly different from a 90% renewable + 10% nuclear grid. Nuclear does very little to help because to make economic sense it has to be kept running most of the time, and so not much capacity can be kept in reserve to deal with renewables dropping out. I'll also note that if renewables have reached 70%, the residual demand will be so uneven that new nuclear won't make any sense, as it won't be possible to keep it running most of the time. Too often renewables will be delivering 100% of demand and nuclear will have no market. As renewables grow, prices become spikier. So what's wanted is some source with low capex that can jump in an exploit these spikes. Gas peakers are an example, but eventually the gas can be something other than natural gas (if NG is taxed for its CO2). Green hydrogen may be the best bet for the 100% renewable end game.