By comparison, any plan for a renewable grid requires massive storage capacity. Most hand-wave this away by assuming some new technology will effectively make storage free.
Does that mean a grid relying heavily on nuclear needs massive amounts of storage?
No - it means you need to have redundant capacity which is the solution also used for wind and solar. The benefit of nuclear in this regard isn't that it's "non-intermittent" - it's that the most common failure modes for a nuclear nuclear are statistically independent (except when it's not like in a natural catastrophe situation - like Fukushima).
But as a grid operator trying to match supply and demand, it's just a variant of the same problem.
The solution preferred by grids heavily dependent on wind for example is simply to over-provision wind and use de-rating while maintaining natural gas capacity reserve (which is relatively cheap). This approach is relatively proven at this stage with some European countries deriving around half their electricity from "intermittent" renewables.
1. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183680/us-average-capaci...
Storage and distribution works the same as for fossil methane (pressurized in cave systems/old gas wells).
Production is simple, and we yes, the efficiency is around 20-30% round-trip. But that's enough to handle up to ~30% of electricity supply with less than 2x overcapacity.
And that's assuming you don't just slap carbon capture on a gas turbine you feed with fractionally distilled oxygen (>99% should be easily enough) and enough exhaust back-feed to not melt the turbine blades. A diesel would probably deal better with the combustion temperatures, though.
And Fischer–Tropsch can turn captured carbon into piston-engine-suitable liquid fuel, if you'd need to.
IIRC, for Poland, we're talking about needing to build 10GW worth of solar generation to get 1GW into grid on average, or 4GW of wind. Assuming ~24GWh of storage to make it capable of providing that 1GW continuously.