I don't believe nuclear power ramps up very easily, and in any case it has to run as much as possible to pay for high capital costs. Power that's going to be on standby much of the time needs to be cheap to build.
Anything that usually generates power in the evening will help some, though.
Also, the grid operator being able to schedule demand helps too. Things like water heaters and air conditioning can be run in advance and turned off at peak times.
The challenge is almost 100 of the cost is up front, so the economics favor using the power all the time, because it is basically free once built.
Surplus electricity could hypothetically be put to use, but something would need to built to take advantage. (Perhaps batteries or some other load.)
[1] https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/04/20/driven-by-solar-calif...
Sure, sure, but these are unusual times and not the common case. And if it was the common case that the price was zero during most daylight hours, it would be solar that goes bankrupt, since that's the only time it's generating. The other generation methods would still have the revenue from generating at night, which was the bulk of their revenue to begin with because of the expected price differential.
> Surplus electricity could hypothetically be put to use, but something would need to built to take advantage. (Perhaps batteries or some other load.)
Charging electric vehicles is an obvious one which will increase with their adoption. It's also likely that the grid will need some kind of storage because even if you have baseload plants to carry most of the nighttime load, the peak load of the day is just after sunset, and picking that up is going to require some kind of storage or peaker plants but the existing peaker plants are fossil fuels.
What baseload plants give you is to only need enough storage to make up the difference between what the baseload plants generate and that peak, and only for that couple of hours instead of the entire night.
Let's take Britain as an example. It has a nuclear waste storage facility in Sellafield that costs billions every year to run and the price for the final solution is anyone's guess, again we are talking about hundreds of billions - 263 billion pounds is the latest estimate to be exact. [2]
Let's take Finland as an example, which is a smaller country. It plans to dispose of the waste in a specially built nuclear facility that cost billions. They will then depose 300 caskets there made of thousands of tons of iron and copper, again costing billions.[3]
Now whatever the cost of solar panel disposal will be, I am pretty sure the number will not be 100 billion and it will not be 23 billion either. And it will not be a really big issue what to do with it, and the vast majority of it will likely be recycled.
[1] https://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-d... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/04/sellafield-... [3] https://www.trtworld.com/europe/finland-to-bury-nuclear-wast...
Google/nest just spun off their energy team, Ecobee was bought out by a home energy company, so hopefully we’re seeing a new generation of smart energy companies coming.
Yes, batteries. From yesterday: