The problem is that you can’t assume ”always on” anymore.
Why should consumers choose expensive nuclear powered electricity when cheap renewables, or stored renewables are available?
They don’t and now capacity factors crater.
Leading to what was once seen as ”baseload” plants being forced to become peakers. And running a nuclear plant with those fixed costs as a peaker/firming becomes stupidly expensive per MWh produced.
See this Australian ”baseload” coal plant forced into a peaker role or be decommissioned.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-10-13/australian-coal-plant...
> Why should consumers choose expensive nuclear powered electricity when cheap renewables, or stored renewables are available?
That's why truly free markets are a bad idea? We've been through this.
Repeat after me: the value of the electric grid is in its stability. It must not go down regardless of pesky events like the winter or cloud cover.
You don't get to sell below cost to push out your competitors, thanks to regulations.
But hell, whatever, I agree — let's only use solar & wind and see how it goes :)
Oh, now you want to burn coal/gas? Awww. Remind me, what was the cost of climate change again?
Baseload is simply the lowest wattage your grid demands in a time period. Solar and wind have not made it irrelevant at all. All of the demand from data centers very much assumes constant reliable power which is in fact a perfect match for nuclear.