the problem is, every time the sun shines and the wind blows it makes the investment in nuclear a sinking ship.. you cant throttle nuclear power plants like that, so they keep producing energy you cant charge for. They keep producing waste, they keep chewing up fuel and they continue being a saftey issue.
What needs to happen is baseload storage, batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen/ammonia.
I'm 100% on the renewable energy arc and have been for decades. However ..
> and they continue being a saftey issue.
this just gets tedious. I'm been in exploration geophysics and resource estimation, modelling, resource processing, etc for decades and batteries, hydrogen | ammonia aren't going to be any safer than existing nuclear reactors.
eg:
South Korea battery maker apologises for deadly fire but says it complied with safety rules
following a massive factory fire that killed 23 workers
Nuclear power can be dispatched/throttled. The reason why it's not done in practice is because it's uneconomic - the cost of nuclear power is almost all in building the plant and in the subsequent decommissioning, the power itself is almost free once you account for that. So you're better off producing, even under very unfavorable conditions. (Negative prices for power due to excess production can theoretically happen, but they will be solved if storage can be expanded and demand response can be deployed at scale. And renewables are even less capable of throttling in case of negative prices.)
What needs to happen is baseload storage, batteries, pumped hydro, hydrogen/ammonia.