3 ms·

I meant environmentally independent power sources as being baseline power. Probably bad wording on my part. You can not guarantee, no matter the capacity of po

I meant environmentally independent power sources as being baseline power. Probably bad wording on my part. You can not guarantee, no matter the capacity of power storage, that you never produce too little power over a long enough period. This is the basis of my opinion that the closer to 100% renewable you get the faster the amount of additional capacity you need rises. Something like 1/x over-provisioning[1] needed, where x is the percentage of environmentally independent power sources. [1] Not sure if that is the right word.

bryanlarsen 6y ago
Conventional plants need to be over-provisioned too, because of the possibility that one or more plants have a malfunction and have to shut down, possibly during a period of high load. Put another way, it's probably more likely that they'll be some sort of equipment malfunction than we go an entire month with no wind. Providing redundancy through independent mechanism (over-provisioning, storage, diverse sources) helps a lot. But you're right. A grid that's 99% renewable with a natural gas peaker providing that last 1% will be a lot cheaper than a grid that's 100% renewable.
- ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
  Working in that industry, my eyes roll whenever I see someone talk about "baseline" power. You are right in that there is no such thing as "baseline" generation really. And thermal plants also need to be over-provisioned. There is dispatchable and non dispatchable power, the former being plants that can alter output on demand. Base-load is the point which the 24 hour cycle of demand doesn't go below. It's pretty much just a number. Who occupies the base of the generation stack and will stay running during low demand, is the one who is cheapest. If wind is cheaper than nuclear, it will displace nuclear. The people who say "IMO we need nuclear for baseline and renewable for peaking" completely miss these facts. The way it is going is renewable at the base of the stack and dispatchable power filling in the gaps, be that during peak or periods of low renewable output.
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    > The way it is going is renewable at the base of the stack and dispatchable power filling in the gaps, be that during peak or periods of low renewable output. Very good idea to run gas plants with 490 grams CO2 per kWh instead of nuclear power plants with 12 grams CO2 per kWh, indeed. France produces 50 grams of CO2 per kWh while Germany has 400 grams on average: > https://www.electricitymap.org/ https://www.electricitymap.org/ Your ideal model for producing electricity actually hurts the environment as the times where gas plants need to run are much more often than you think.
    - bryanlarsen 6y ago
      "dispatchable power" doesn't necessarily mean gas, it could mean storage.
      - ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
        Also nuclear is only weakly dispatchable, something the comment you replied to misses. So it is not suitable for filling the gaps. A 100% nuclear grid will need dispatchable peak power as well, be it gas or storage.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

Conventional plants need to be over-provisioned too, because of the possibility that one or more plants have a malfunction and have to shut down, possibly during a period of high load. Put another way, it's probably more likely that they'll be some sort of equipment malfunction than we go an entire month with no wind. Providing redundancy through independent mechanism (over-provisioning, storage, diverse sources) helps a lot. But you're right. A grid that's 99% renewable with a natural gas peaker providing that last 1% will be a lot cheaper than a grid that's 100% renewable.

ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
Working in that industry, my eyes roll whenever I see someone talk about "baseline" power. You are right in that there is no such thing as "baseline" generation really. And thermal plants also need to be over-provisioned. There is dispatchable and non dispatchable power, the former being plants that can alter output on demand. Base-load is the point which the 24 hour cycle of demand doesn't go below. It's pretty much just a number. Who occupies the base of the generation stack and will stay running during low demand, is the one who is cheapest. If wind is cheaper than nuclear, it will displace nuclear. The people who say "IMO we need nuclear for baseline and renewable for peaking" completely miss these facts. The way it is going is renewable at the base of the stack and dispatchable power filling in the gaps, be that during peak or periods of low renewable output.
- cbmuser 6y ago
  > The way it is going is renewable at the base of the stack and dispatchable power filling in the gaps, be that during peak or periods of low renewable output. Very good idea to run gas plants with 490 grams CO2 per kWh instead of nuclear power plants with 12 grams CO2 per kWh, indeed. France produces 50 grams of CO2 per kWh while Germany has 400 grams on average: > https://www.electricitymap.org/ https://www.electricitymap.org/ Your ideal model for producing electricity actually hurts the environment as the times where gas plants need to run are much more often than you think.
  - bryanlarsen 6y ago
    "dispatchable power" doesn't necessarily mean gas, it could mean storage.
    - ourlordcaffeine 6y ago
      Also nuclear is only weakly dispatchable, something the comment you replied to misses. So it is not suitable for filling the gaps. A 100% nuclear grid will need dispatchable peak power as well, be it gas or storage.