Neat breakdown with data + some code.

  • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 hours ago

    There is absolutely nothing required about baseload power. It’s there because the economics of generating power favored it in the past. You could build a baseload plant that spits out a GW or so all day, everyday for relatively cheap.

    That economic advantage is no longer there, and no longer relevant.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Well you still need baseload. You can’t forget about it just because it’s inconvenient.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          38 minutes ago

          Honestly it’s like talking to a conspiracy theorist.

          What are you talking about, what’s “an accounting thing” do you even know what base load is? Go look up brownouts, actually for that matter go look up the term baseload because I don’t think you’re using it right

          • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            20 minutes ago

            You don’t need baseload. You need to follow the duck curve of demand.

            You had baseload because those plants used to be the cheapest one you could find. That’s not true anymore, and the model needs to shift with it.

            https://www.nrdc.org/bio/kevin-steinberger/debunking-three-myths-about-baseload

            In the past, coal and nuclear were perceived to be the cheapest resources, and the prior electricity system structure relied upon large power plants without valuing flexibility. Today, low natural gas prices, declining renewables costs, flat electricity demand due to more efficient energy use, and stronger climate and public health protections are all driving an irreversible shift in the underlying economics of the electricity industry. As a result, the term “baseload”—which historically has been used to refer to coal and nuclear plants—is no longer useful.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 minutes ago

              Yes if you ignore all externalities the “economics” means that you can use Natural Gas “peaking” plants instead. But one of the main advantages of nuclear power is zero green-house gas emissions.

              If fossil fuels were taxed appropriately, the economics of them wouldn’t be viable anymore. A modest tax of a $million USD per ton of CO2 would fix up that price discrepancy.

              • Frezik@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 minutes ago

                Most of this is being driven by renewables. Natural gas gets mentioned because its price has dropped due to fracking, but it’s not a strictly necessary part of this argument, either. Water/wind/solar solutions have undercut even the plummet in natural gas prices.

                Nuclear has no place. Nobody is building it, and it’s not because regulators are blocking it. It’s also completely unnecessary.

    • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      What makes power when the sun isn’t out and the wind isn’t blowing? Nuclear, gas, or coal.

      By being anti-nuclear, you force it to be gas or coal.