4 ms·
The article concedes that there is a minimum power consumption. Thinking that therefore defines your generation strategy (e.g. I will have plants that constantl
by cbsmith 2mo ago
The article concedes that there is a minimum power consumption. Thinking that therefore defines your generation strategy (e.g. I will have plants that constantly generate that minimum amount and the rest I'll handle with separate peak plants) is a myth.
- throw0101d 2mo ago> Thinking that therefore defines your generation strategy (e.g. I will have plants that constantly generate that minimum amount and the rest I'll handle with separate peak plants) is a myth. The strategy would be to have economical, non-intermittent generation. It would be non-intermittent supply because that part of demand is non-intermittent.
- bryanlarsen 2mo agoThat strategy makes no sense when dispatchable power generation is cheaper than non-intermittent generation. This happened about 20 years ago when natgas became cheaper than coal.
- throw0101d 2mo ago> This happened about 20 years ago when natgas became cheaper than coal. With or without externalities like climate change costed in?
- Tostino 2mo agoDude, that's like, our kids' problem.
- bryanlarsen 2mo agoYes. natgas + purchased carbon credits are cheaper than nuclear.
- rcxdude 2mo agoIt is a reasonable strategy if you have some non-intermittent generation that is significantly more economical than the other options. It's not a requirement for all grids in all technological contexts.