3 ms·
I fail to see how these two things are in conflict. I don't know of any grid operators that are advocating for a baseload generation free grid, of course solar
by fyrn_ 2y ago
I fail to see how these two things are in conflict. I don't know of any grid operators that are advocating for a baseload generation free grid, of course solar and wind are great too, much cheaper then well everything elss at this point, but storage onky goes so far, a reliable grid needs base gen
- ZeroGravitas 2y agoGrid operators are moving to "renewables and firming" to replace "baseload and peaking". Since peaking and firming are basically the same thing, it just comes down to whether renewables are cleaner and cheaper than baseload, which they are. Nuclear fans talk all the time about baseload and pretend peaking doesn't exist so they can attack renewables.
- 7952 2y agoRenewables does not need to provide a 100% solution in order to aid decarbonisation.
- defrost 2y agoDecarbonisations need to demonstrate it has actual net value. Currently the largest actual decarbonisation project on the planet is an Oil&Gas boondoogle that stores a great deal less than it promised to and even what it promised was a great deal less carbon put back than the project released. So far, to date, it's been no more than greenwashing the expansion of gas extraction and hasn't yet been put to anything approaching the scale required in the timeframe demanded.
- cinntaile 2y agoThe article is talking about reliable decarbonization of grids while you're talking about a reliable grid. Two very different things. Decarbonization is a global problem, not a local one. Electricity use as a whole is up. Coal is down, oil is down. Gas is up, it's lower carbon than oil and coal so it contributes to decarbonization. The four main low-carbon sources are wind, solar, hydro and nuclear. They all reliably contribute to the decarbonization efforts as evidenced by the data.