4 ms·
Only if inflexible and flexible are the same cost. If an inflexible source is cheaper, then it may better a fit as a high capacity factor supplier to meet cons
by TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
Only if inflexible and flexible are the same cost.
If an inflexible source is cheaper, then it may better a fit as a high capacity factor supplier to meet constant demand.
We first need to agree on the problems and the solution, using levelised costs for lifetime of plant, and safe disposal, preferably using real examples, but theoretical best case examples are also worth discussing.
I'm inclined to believe there is no best pasta sauce, only best pasta sauces. One size does not, in face, fit all.
- Dylan16807 4y ago> Only if inflexible and flexible are the same cost. You must be misreading the comment or something. They didn't say it's the only factor, they said it's a negative. It's a negative no matter how the costs align.
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y agoRestating the point without additional explanation an argument does not make. In what world is it reasonable to implement unrequired, unnecessary, and costly, features and call that a net positive in all cases under all circumstances.
- Dylan16807 4y agoYou're comparing entire solutions. That's not what they were talking about. They were talking about individual features. Also, some sources are more flexible by their very nature and get the flexibility for free. But more generally, lacking flexibility is a negative by itself. It's an acceptable negative if adding flexibility would cost more than the benefit, but it's still a negative.
- HyperSane 4y ago"But more generally, lacking flexibility is a negative by itself." Not for baseload generation.
- Dylan16807 4y agoIt's still part of the same grid as non-baseload generation, so the lack of flexibility makes the entire grid less flexible. So yes it's a negative. And most people would call "can't be used for the more difficult parts of power generation" a negative too.