> Moreover nuclear's aptitude to load-following is vastly over-stated because it has too much inertia (even hot).

There is load-following thermally and load-following electrically. Newer nuclear designs allow for the steam to be diverted and quenched so they don't reach the generators.

Of course this is inefficient, but as you can see in the following link:

* https://www.ieso.ca/power-data § Supply

the Ontario nuclear plants basically run at full-tilt 24/7 to provide base load.

Hydro-electric is also supplying a bunch of base load, so if more nuclear can be built so that it takes up more of that hydro is doing, hydro can then be used in a more variable fashion (so perhaps (nat/methane) gas can be reduced and we have fewer GHGs released).

Yes, there are two types of load-following: "bump up the power", or "lower it". This also applies do renewables: not producing (many wind turbines are equipped with a braking system) or wasting an excess of power isn't as challenging as quickly producing more power, then less, then more... fine-tuning and for extended periods of time.

Yes, running at full-tilt 24/7 is way easier for a nuclear reactor than doing the load-following game (on every account: total cost, maintenance, risk...). They are built for it!

Hydro: yes, to an extent because load-following hydro is mainly done by pumped-storage, many dams are of the "run-of-the-river" type and cannot always load-follow: if there is no incoming (upstream) water they cannot produce any power.

Which is a quirk of hindering renewable deployment.

All over Europe nuclear reactors are throttled down or even shut down for days/weeks because renewables lead to too low prices for the reactors to even cover wear and tear and fuel costs.

Given that renewables are the cheapest energy source in human history this will happen in every grid that is based on a free market principle.

In the monopolized markets the distributed aspects of renewables will mean that rooftop solar and storage enables home owners to largely disconnect from the grid if the monopoly starts to force new built nuclear power costs on the ratepayers.

In other words: Nuclear power is fucked unless it can either get the marginal cost to zero like a solar panel, i.e. impossible or get CAPEX low enough to act like a fossil gas peaker which again seems near impossible given the past 70 years of nuclear powers history and commercialization.