Most areas in California, maybe.
> This is why the percentage of solar is exploding world wide while nuclear has stagnated.
No, solar is exploding because it's heavily subsidized, either monetarily or by other schemes like net metering. Nuclear has stagnated because it requires huge upfront cost, and stability in building new capacity.
Look at a globe some time, most of the world is much closer to the equator than Germany yet battery backed solar still beats gas/coal/nuclear in parts of southern Germany.
PS: Nuclear, coal, and natural gas also receive plenty of subsidies. It turns out removing all subsidies from electricity production actually pushes wind/grid solar even harder. What it discourages is rooftop solar which isn’t a good fit for many locations.
As to PA, this time of year demand is very low as you need minimal heating or cooling. Similarly while solar output is low in stormy weather wind isn’t. Similarly the region has plenty of hydroelectric which can offset production from days with high wind/solar production to days with low wind/solar production.
Weather tends to be a tradeoff where hydro and wind improve just as solar and demand decline. In extreme cases like Washington state batteries are pointless and the ideal mix changes.
This is the real problem with renewables. You need to 20-30x them to get to real usage. Or have 100% redundant gas coverage, with giant political problems coming with it.
It also has 12.5GW of PV because it’s still a cost effective location for solar power.
You don’t get anything in seconds, but over years you just pay people to build them and they build factories just like you pay people to build equipment for other types of power plants.
New limits always show up with new scales. People will advocate dramatically scaling nuclear as if tens of thousands of people with the skills to operate them are sitting around with nothing to do. Lack of skilled workers is actually a larger limiting factor for nuclear than the few years it takes to build a single reactor and one of the reasons they can’t make a significant difference without at least a decade of lead time and more likely several. Current programs can teach people reasonably quickly, but you need not just students but more people trained to teach the material.
Sounds like a win/win.