Baseload has always been bullshit, see e.g. ceem.unsw.edu.au/…/MarkBaseloadFallacyANZSEE.pdf
It’s even more irrelevant now that battery storage can level out multi-day variability.
Comment on Not a single one
mirshafie@europe.pub 6 days agoNo, you couldn’t. You need base load. Countries like Denmark and Germany freeload on the base load of France, Sweden and Finland. And the moronic EU laws that currently enable this will eventually change to charge them for that.
naught101@lemmy.world 6 days ago
mirshafie@europe.pub 6 days ago
Great. Fucking build it then. Go ahead and build your non-hydro non-nuclear baseload, and I’ll shut the fuck up. Until then, I’ll call you out every time you say that nuclear and hydro is too expensive.
naught101@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I’m in Australia, it’s already happening… smh.com.au/…/green-energy-is-shielding-australia-…
mirshafie@europe.pub 6 days ago
The article is paywalled, but just from the first snippet I don’t see how it’s relevant. If you’re replacing oil or coal based power generation with wind, then that’s awesome. But my assertion is that you do actually need to supplement that with something that can be tuned on the fly to keep a stable frequency in the grid. So far the experimental designs to do so with massive “batteries” have not looked very promising to me.
A rule of thumb is that you need a minimum of 20% of your grid to be tunable. That’s a hard minimum.
einfach_orangensaft@sh.itjust.works 6 days ago
Tell me, how are the french nuclear plants dealt with the last heat wave?
mirshafie@europe.pub 6 days ago
You’re deflecting because you don’t have a real argument to come up with. It’s true that global warming is having a negative impact on nuclear power in France, Switzerland and other places, but it doesn’t change the fact that you need some way to keep a stable voltage and frequency over your grid.