3 ms·
The whole argument about base supply (not load), only made sense in the old times when there were expensive variable supplies which could quickly follow load, a
by cycomanic 4y ago
The whole argument about base supply (not load), only made sense in the old times when there were expensive variable supplies which could quickly follow load, and cheap base supplies which would run constantly at the same output (typically coal, nuclear...).
The situation completely changed now the highly variable loads are cheaper now than the former base supplies. So you would always use your money to overbuild on the variable supplies not build constant supplies. The thing is solar and wind don't compete with gas, they compete with coal solar. However with the way solar and wind costs are going, we will likely reach a point where it makes more sense to overbuild so much to even cover the load peaks instead of using gas peakers.
- sokoloff 4y agoIt seems unreasonable to think that wind and solar could be overbuilt to an extent they could serve as a sole supply. Everyone has had the experience of walking around on a windless night. You can have many such nights in a row.
- Gwypaas 4y agoOn a continent scale?
- cycomanic 4y agoThere has been a lot of research that showed that this is possible with relatively little over provisioning for a place like the US or Europe. The thing that is still missing are highly integrated electricity nets, but that is improving raapidely mainly for economic reasons (with a very competitive market and integrated nets one can make quite a bit of money by selling from places we're generation is currently cheap). If we use hydro also for storage (pumping up water when electricity is cheap), you need even less overprovisioning.