8 ms·

Well I think comparing intermittent energy with baseload energy 1:1 is kind of unfair since they fill different functions in the grid. It's cheaper and less ri

Well I think comparing intermittent energy with baseload energy 1:1 is kind of unfair since they fill different functions in the grid. It's cheaper and less risky to produce a bike than a train. Both are a means of transportation but you can't replace trains with bikes or bikes with trains.

revertmean 4y ago
I suppose you could complain to the grid operators that they're being unfair in buying the cheapest electricity rather than the more expensive stuff, but I'm not sure it will sway them much :) Is electricity in the US socialized? I thought they were all private companies, but you seem to be talking as though this is a political choice, rather than an economic one. I freely admit I don't know much about how the US operates its grids.
- klabb3 4y ago
  As a baseload source, it is likely that nuclear has been out-competed by "natural" gas, and other fossils (and hydro, where available), but when we start shutting those down, we're likely to want our nuclear back. Saying nuclear is uneconomical compared to wind/solar is dishonest without mentioning baseload (comparing price only when one source is abundant).
  - trashtester 4y ago
    In practice, what seems to happen if you shut down nuclear in favour of renewables, is that renewables will replace maybe 30-50% of the nuclear power, and the rest will be covered by gas. The total price tends to end up around $0.15/kwh, plus taxes, or around the same as new nuclear, with all associated regulations. (but more than already established nuclear, or the cost nuclear should have if built economically). For those who really care about global warming, nuclear is still much better than such a mix. If you're really not worried about global warming, gas + renewables make a lot more sense. Especially if you don't want coal or nuclear "in your back yard".
- sanderjd 4y ago
  It's a mix. They are pretty much all private companies, but very heavily regulated. There are different degrees of regulation and a few different "deregulated" market structures, but there is a lot of government oversight even in the least regulated market (in Texas).
Retric 4y ago
They actually fill the exact same function on the grid. You need load following to keep up with shifting demand, that’s absolutely required and the only thing actually required. Intermittent and base load on the other hand is simply cheaper than load following which lowers production costs vs a 100% load following grid. Intermittent sources can actually provide a much higher percentage of annual power than base load sources at a lower cost per kWh.
- Mrdarknezz 4y ago
  No, intermittent energy can't load follow since it's intermittent. You can see this mostly in europe where those that keept nuclear online has cheaper grids that those that didn't. Especially true for this is in germany
  - Retric 4y ago
    You completely misunderstood my point. Load following is the 1st category historically, currently filled by hydro, gas turbines, and batteries. Base load was the 2nd category which was less flexible but historically cheaper coal and nuclear. The only advantage it has over load following is price. We now how a new 3rd category intermittent generation which is also cheaper than load following but just like base load it can’t follow the demand curve. Therefore replacing all base load generation with cheaper intermittent generation is absolutely fine as lone as load following can pick up the slack there is zero downsides. PS: Nuclear doesn’t actually lower peoples electricity costs. The difference is people in France are paying a percentage of their electric bill in taxes rather than as a separate bill. That’s great for poor people, but less so for the economy.
    - sanderjd 4y ago
      The thing is that there is not yet a non-fossil-fuel non-intermittent non-geographically-constrained scalable generation source capable of load following. Base load could be replaced with natural gas, and yeah that's just a cost trade-off. But renewables are intermittent, hydro is geographically limited, and batteries have not yet been scalable enough.
Gwypaas 4y ago
> The baseload[1] (also base load) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. This demand can be met by unvarying power plants,[2] dispatchable generation,[3] or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources,[4] depending on which approach has the best mix of low cost, availability and high reliability in any particular market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load "Base load" on the power generation side has only ever been an side effect of economics, not an intrinsic property of the electrical grid.
- sanderjd 4y ago
  Could you say more about that? It seems like an intrinsic property of the demand curve and the attributes of different kinds of power generation (ie. some can be turned up and down quickly, some can't).
  - Gwypaas 4y ago
    That does not mean that it needs to be fulfilled by sources which can vary their output. You can just as easily curtail renewables when overproducing.
    - sanderjd 4y ago
      But you can't spin them up when underproducing... I think I just don't get what point you're making.
      - Gwypaas 4y ago
        The point is through geographical decoupling statistically some will "always" be spinning.
        sanderjd 4y ago
        Maybe for wind? But there are a bunch of hours in the middle of the night that entire continents can't produce solar power.

revertmean 4y ago

I suppose you could complain to the grid operators that they're being unfair in buying the cheapest electricity rather than the more expensive stuff, but I'm not sure it will sway them much :) Is electricity in the US socialized? I thought they were all private companies, but you seem to be talking as though this is a political choice, rather than an economic one. I freely admit I don't know much about how the US operates its grids.

klabb3 4y ago
As a baseload source, it is likely that nuclear has been out-competed by "natural" gas, and other fossils (and hydro, where available), but when we start shutting those down, we're likely to want our nuclear back. Saying nuclear is uneconomical compared to wind/solar is dishonest without mentioning baseload (comparing price only when one source is abundant).
- trashtester 4y ago
  In practice, what seems to happen if you shut down nuclear in favour of renewables, is that renewables will replace maybe 30-50% of the nuclear power, and the rest will be covered by gas. The total price tends to end up around $0.15/kwh, plus taxes, or around the same as new nuclear, with all associated regulations. (but more than already established nuclear, or the cost nuclear should have if built economically). For those who really care about global warming, nuclear is still much better than such a mix. If you're really not worried about global warming, gas + renewables make a lot more sense. Especially if you don't want coal or nuclear "in your back yard".
sanderjd 4y ago
It's a mix. They are pretty much all private companies, but very heavily regulated. There are different degrees of regulation and a few different "deregulated" market structures, but there is a lot of government oversight even in the least regulated market (in Texas).

Retric 4y ago

They actually fill the exact same function on the grid. You need load following to keep up with shifting demand, that’s absolutely required and the only thing actually required. Intermittent and base load on the other hand is simply cheaper than load following which lowers production costs vs a 100% load following grid. Intermittent sources can actually provide a much higher percentage of annual power than base load sources at a lower cost per kWh.

Mrdarknezz 4y ago
No, intermittent energy can't load follow since it's intermittent. You can see this mostly in europe where those that keept nuclear online has cheaper grids that those that didn't. Especially true for this is in germany
- Retric 4y ago
  You completely misunderstood my point. Load following is the 1st category historically, currently filled by hydro, gas turbines, and batteries. Base load was the 2nd category which was less flexible but historically cheaper coal and nuclear. The only advantage it has over load following is price. We now how a new 3rd category intermittent generation which is also cheaper than load following but just like base load it can’t follow the demand curve. Therefore replacing all base load generation with cheaper intermittent generation is absolutely fine as lone as load following can pick up the slack there is zero downsides. PS: Nuclear doesn’t actually lower peoples electricity costs. The difference is people in France are paying a percentage of their electric bill in taxes rather than as a separate bill. That’s great for poor people, but less so for the economy.
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    The thing is that there is not yet a non-fossil-fuel non-intermittent non-geographically-constrained scalable generation source capable of load following. Base load could be replaced with natural gas, and yeah that's just a cost trade-off. But renewables are intermittent, hydro is geographically limited, and batteries have not yet been scalable enough.

Gwypaas 4y ago

> The baseload[1] (also base load) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week. This demand can be met by unvarying power plants,[2] dispatchable generation,[3] or by a collection of smaller intermittent energy sources,[4] depending on which approach has the best mix of low cost, availability and high reliability in any particular market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load "Base load" on the power generation side has only ever been an side effect of economics, not an intrinsic property of the electrical grid.

sanderjd 4y ago
Could you say more about that? It seems like an intrinsic property of the demand curve and the attributes of different kinds of power generation (ie. some can be turned up and down quickly, some can't).
- Gwypaas 4y ago
  That does not mean that it needs to be fulfilled by sources which can vary their output. You can just as easily curtail renewables when overproducing.
  - sanderjd 4y ago
    But you can't spin them up when underproducing... I think I just don't get what point you're making.
    - Gwypaas 4y ago
      The point is through geographical decoupling statistically some will "always" be spinning.
      - sanderjd 4y ago
        Maybe for wind? But there are a bunch of hours in the middle of the night that entire continents can't produce solar power.