You can back that up with combustion turbines. The cost/watt of a simple cycle combustion turbine powerplant is just 5% of the cost/W of a nuclear power plant (combined cycle, just 10%), so backing up the entire grid this way is cheap (in capital cost) compared to the capital cost of a nuclear-powered grid. If you don't use those turbines very often, the fuel cost is manageable, even if you use non-fossil fuels like "green" hydrogen. To cut down on that fuel cost, you can also add some batteries to reduce the fraction of time the turbines are required to operate.

> You can back that up with combustion turbines.

So, back that up with burning natural gas.

> so backing up the entire grid this way is cheap (in capital cost) compared to the capital cost of a nuclear-powered grid.

> To cut down on that fuel cost, you can also add some batteries to reduce the fraction of time the turbines are required to operate.

So, the "cheap" is in reality:

- many gas powered energy plants (that are not there, and need to be built)

- plus many batteries (that are not there, and need to be built)

- plus cheap natural gas to burn

So much for "green energy already has the capacity to replace something"

> So, back that up with burning natural gas.

You didn't read my whole comment there. One could use green hydrogen.

> One could use green hydrogen.

Ah yes. It's a thing that

- can be cheaply produced at scale

- can be easily transported to large distances

- infrastructure can be easily and quickly converted to using it

Yes, all of those are likely going to be true. Are they true at this instant? Maybe not, but a nuclear plant we start building today also won't be available at this instant.

Note that the application of green hydrogen I'm talking about here, grid backup, does not require replacing existing natural gas use with hydrogen. Nor does it require long distance hydrogen pipelines.

> Are they true at this instant? Maybe not, but

There's no "but". The situation right now is that starry-eyed proponents of renewal energy sources claim that they have already surpassed nuclear etc. When in reality they can't cover the basics. And the answer to that? "Oh, yeah, sometime in the future there may be something to complement this".

> Note that the application of green hydrogen I'm talking about here, grid backup, does not require replacing existing natural gas use with hydrogen. Nor does it require long distance hydrogen pipelines.

Ah yes. Because green hydrogen just magically appeares every time you need it when you say "green hydrogen" three times

I assume you're being sarcastic. Hydrogen can escape through solid metal, making it brittle in the process. It's cheap to produce from natural gas, but that's not green hydrogen. Green hydrogen is a lot more expensive. It's also very voluminous unless liquified which requires a ton of energy and refrigeration to maintain.

> I assume you're being sarcastic.

I am being extremely sarcastic, that's true :) For all the reasons you listed :)

You probably know, but "cheap hydrogen" is produced from natural gas... lol.

At present, with no CO2 fee. But this will not last.