4 ms·

This is a confusing thing to say, can you explain?

by projct 5mo ago

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]
gpm 5mo ago
What you need - the only thing you need - is dispatchable power. That is power supply that can rise and fall to meet demand. That is not what baseload is. It's also not what wind/solar provide. What baseload is is electricity supply which is only economical if you use it all the time. Nuclear falls into this category because of its very high capital cost and low op-ex. If it's cheaper than dispatchable power (nuclear isn't) it's nice to have as much of it as the minimum demand that you see on the grid, to lower costs. If it's as expensive, or more expensive, than dispatchable power, that's fine, you just don't need it at all and can replace it entirely with dispatchable power. It's similar to wind and solar in this, which also aren't dispatchable (though there supply curve looks different than the constant supply curve which "base load" is used to mean). Except wind and solar actually are cheaper than dispatchable power so they make economic sense. The term is half marketing term and half a theory that constant supply non-dispatchable power would be significantly cheaper than dispatchable power so we should organize the grid around it. That theory didn't really pan out (apart from some places with non-storable hydro, and a few with geothermal).
dalyons 5mo ago
have a read through this: https://cleanenergyreview.io/p/baseload-is-a-myth https://cleanenergyreview.io/p/baseload-is-a-myth basically, base load means the lowest point of demand on the grid. And you matched that with slow-to-respond thermal power plants (coal mainly, also nukes). Because those are slow to respond and are most profitable running at 100%, so you tried to keep them there. So called base load generation. But note there is no rule of the universe that says you have to meet the base load demand with some static constant power source, you can get it from anywhere. And now, since renewables and batteries are cheaper than this base load generation, it knocks them off the grid rendering it unprofitable. So the whole concept of base load supply is obsolete. Anyway, the linked blog explains it better.
- leonidasrup 5mo ago
  You don't need to run coal power plant close to 100% to be profitable. You want to run nuclear power plant close to 100% because fuel is cheap and you want pay back CAPEX as early as possible. The article you send is perfect example why it's not economic to build new coal or nuclear power plants in US. The reasons are: very cheap natural gas and no CO2 tax. In US natural gas + solar is the cheapest way to generate electricity. In Europe the situation is very different. "Europe is in the opposite spot. The continent's main gas point, the TTF benchmark, nearly doubled to over €60/MWh by mid-March." https://www.briefs.co/news/u-s-natural-gas-just-hit-a-record-negative-streak-while-europes-doubled/ https://www.briefs.co/news/u-s-natural-gas-just-hit-a-record...
  - dalyons 5mo ago
    so what should europe do? gas being expensive doesnt make nuclear economics better for the role of variable backstop of an increasingly renewable grid. Its still a fatal economic equation for nuclear. Btw battery is rapidly changing the math on > US natural gas + solar is the cheapest way to generate electricity california went from 45% gas in 2022 to 25% gas in 2025 almost entirely because of batteries (and more solar), and they're just getting started. I know its not generally true across the US, but very soon batteries are going to be pushing a huge amount of gas off the grid.
    - leonidasrup 5mo ago
      Europe should: 1. Think very hard how to reduce reliance on imports (US, Russia, Middle East fossil fuels), (China solar, batteries, consumer goods). 2. Think very hard about the decarbinization strategy. The strategy was: we will replace fossil fuels with renewables, we will be successfull, everybody else will see how see how successfull we are and everybody will follow our example. This strategy is not working, world-wide CO2 emmisions are increasing every year, industry from Europe is moving outside Europe because high energy prices, GDP is stagnating. Europe should think how to push other major CO2 emmiters China, India, US, to strongly decrease CO2. Europe alone will fail to fix climate change.
  - 5mo ago

This is a confusing thing to say, can you explain?

by projct 5mo ago

This is a confusing thing to say, can you explain?

deleted 5mo ago

[deleted]

gpm 5mo ago

What you need - the only thing you need - is dispatchable power. That is power supply that can rise and fall to meet demand. That is not what baseload is. It's also not what wind/solar provide. What baseload is is electricity supply which is only economical if you use it all the time. Nuclear falls into this category because of its very high capital cost and low op-ex. If it's cheaper than dispatchable power (nuclear isn't) it's nice to have as much of it as the minimum demand that you see on the grid, to lower costs. If it's as expensive, or more expensive, than dispatchable power, that's fine, you just don't need it at all and can replace it entirely with dispatchable power. It's similar to wind and solar in this, which also aren't dispatchable (though there supply curve looks different than the constant supply curve which "base load" is used to mean). Except wind and solar actually are cheaper than dispatchable power so they make economic sense. The term is half marketing term and half a theory that constant supply non-dispatchable power would be significantly cheaper than dispatchable power so we should organize the grid around it. That theory didn't really pan out (apart from some places with non-storable hydro, and a few with geothermal).

dalyons 5mo ago

have a read through this: https://cleanenergyreview.io/p/baseload-is-a-myth https://cleanenergyreview.io/p/baseload-is-a-myth basically, base load means the lowest point of demand on the grid. And you matched that with slow-to-respond thermal power plants (coal mainly, also nukes). Because those are slow to respond and are most profitable running at 100%, so you tried to keep them there. So called base load generation. But note there is no rule of the universe that says you have to meet the base load demand with some static constant power source, you can get it from anywhere. And now, since renewables and batteries are cheaper than this base load generation, it knocks them off the grid rendering it unprofitable. So the whole concept of base load supply is obsolete. Anyway, the linked blog explains it better.

leonidasrup 5mo ago
You don't need to run coal power plant close to 100% to be profitable. You want to run nuclear power plant close to 100% because fuel is cheap and you want pay back CAPEX as early as possible. The article you send is perfect example why it's not economic to build new coal or nuclear power plants in US. The reasons are: very cheap natural gas and no CO2 tax. In US natural gas + solar is the cheapest way to generate electricity. In Europe the situation is very different. "Europe is in the opposite spot. The continent's main gas point, the TTF benchmark, nearly doubled to over €60/MWh by mid-March." https://www.briefs.co/news/u-s-natural-gas-just-hit-a-record-negative-streak-while-europes-doubled/ https://www.briefs.co/news/u-s-natural-gas-just-hit-a-record...
- dalyons 5mo ago
  so what should europe do? gas being expensive doesnt make nuclear economics better for the role of variable backstop of an increasingly renewable grid. Its still a fatal economic equation for nuclear. Btw battery is rapidly changing the math on > US natural gas + solar is the cheapest way to generate electricity california went from 45% gas in 2022 to 25% gas in 2025 almost entirely because of batteries (and more solar), and they're just getting started. I know its not generally true across the US, but very soon batteries are going to be pushing a huge amount of gas off the grid.
  - leonidasrup 5mo ago
    Europe should: 1. Think very hard how to reduce reliance on imports (US, Russia, Middle East fossil fuels), (China solar, batteries, consumer goods). 2. Think very hard about the decarbinization strategy. The strategy was: we will replace fossil fuels with renewables, we will be successfull, everybody else will see how see how successfull we are and everybody will follow our example. This strategy is not working, world-wide CO2 emmisions are increasing every year, industry from Europe is moving outside Europe because high energy prices, GDP is stagnating. Europe should think how to push other major CO2 emmiters China, India, US, to strongly decrease CO2. Europe alone will fail to fix climate change.
- 5mo ago