3 ms·
> However, nuclear power plants cost about the same amount of money per hour whether they're running or not, so are poorly suited as a solar complement. I thin
by NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> However, nuclear power plants cost about the same amount of money per hour whether they're running or not, so are poorly suited as a solar complement.
I think this is why they call it baseload. Yes it costs the same, used or unused... but it's always there, ready to be used. This is its strength, not a defect.
> If you really want 100% reliability out of a primarily-solar grid
But no reasonable person wants that. They want "100% reliability, and who cares where it comes from". If you're environmentally minded, you can tack on a "with no carbon"... but even that isn't the same thing as a "primarily solar grid".
- bryanlarsen 2y agobaseload is base load, not base generation. Base generation is not a thing. Way back when, they realized that grids had a base load below which it never dropped. They realized that if they designed some of their plants without the expensive features which allowed them to be turned on and off quickly, they could build plants cheaper. You don't design grids for base load, you design grids for peak load in all scenarios. If you can handle peak, you can also handle base. Baseload is for cost optimization. And nuclear is a horrible way to optimize cost.