> It is arguably a fantastic example of where nuclear power excels. Particularly if you had a nuclear plant which ran well below capacity most of the time and ramped up when we have extreme needs.

Right now that's awful, because most of the cost of nuclear plants is the capital costs. Paying a bunch of depreciation on something you don't use 24/7 is dubious.

Also nuclear tends not to ramp very quickly.

I'm pro-nuclear, but for nighttime base load + power-to-gas and filling other storage in the day.

I should have stuck to my main point which is that they actually did have traditional backup power which is also offline.

Do such nuclear power plants exist? I was under the impression that they provided consistent, baseline levels of power in most circumstances.

You can definitely ramp up and down power generation at nuclear plants. Whether that makes sense economically is another question.

Nuclear plants are OK at this. The current fleet in North America can ramp at about 5% per minute from 50% to 100%. (Between 50% and less gets very slow). There's also concern that repeated ramping could greatly increase the amount of maintenance required.

So, on the same order as a "fast" combined cycle plant and quicker than a older combined cycle ng plant. But.... pretty slow compared to the 4 minutes from 0 to 20% and 4 minutes from 20% to 100% for an open cycle gas turbine, and a fair degree of ability to react to "step" loads.

So, if nuclear needed to, it could help out in grid stability operations, but you really need something very fast like hydro or open cycle NG plants (or batteries) to do most of the work.