Comment on Not a single one
naught101@lemmy.world 6 days agoBaseload 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
naught101@lemmy.world 6 days agoBaseload 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.
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.