There's only two viable paths to a zero emissions society. One is nuclear and the other is hydrogen. We have to pick one or the other (or both) as all other ideas have fallen far short of the goal.
My point is we don't have them at a competitive price, and yet the renewables people insist we definitely well. We might, we might not.
The only way we can get there at a reasonable cost is via hydrogen energy storage. The other ideas are orders of magnitude too expensive.
For the UK, the solution might look something like this: https://hydrogeneast.uk/study-explores-uks-geological-hydrog...
Imagine if we had said that 40 years ago. We’d be talking about getting to net zero by 2075 instead of 2050.
Now we’re still waiting for renewables
The entire electrical generation industry knows all this. They know when clouds are coming and when wind will stop and model it all. Pricing information is sent ahead of time and plants know if they will be required to spin up or spin down well in advance. Especially something as simple as "everyone gets home at 6pm at a regular time every weekday". It is easy for plants with slow ramp times, such as nuclear and coal, to plan for that.