Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

cleanenergyreview.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

#31

Post by bryanlarsen »

throw0101d wrote: post #25
cbsmith wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

That 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.

Re: Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

#32

Post by bryanlarsen »

throw0101d wrote: post #21
bryanlarsen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hatred is irrational, but has incidentally done the world a lot of good. In the 90's/00's when Germany and Denmark decided to start decarbonizing their grid, the sane choice would have been nuclear. At the time it was the cheapest zero carbon viable electricity source. (Geothermal may have been cheaper at the time, but wasn't viable to power their entire grid). But instead they decided to massively overpay for w…

> Which dropped from 55% of electricity from coal in 1990 to 23% today. From 400 million tons to 130 tons. And how much lower would have it been if they had chosen to keep their existing nuclear and reduce/retire their coal and/or gas? Certainly if they did not want to build new nuclear that's one thing, but they chose to keep the emitting stuff , which was really stupid IMHO. Even now it'd be viable to re-start some…

None? In 1990 those power plants were online and yet 55% of electricity was from coal.

Re: Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

#33

Post by teamonkey »

wiml wrote: post #26
arn3n wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have this stance. It’s, for me, a tail-risk calculation: For a given nuclear power plant to be more environmentally friendly than equivalent coal, you have to price in the probability of a nuclear catastrophe with the fact that such catastrophes create fallout that can outlast human civilization . I can expect that a well-built nuclear plant might not have a catastrophe in my lifetime. But when the consequences are…

Environmental disasters that will likely outlast human civilization? Coal does that in normal operation .

It’s not an either-or.

Re: Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

#34

Post by throw0101d »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #31
throw0101d wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That 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.

> This happened about 20 years ago when natgas became cheaper than coal.

With or without externalities like climate change costed in?

Re: Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

#35

Post by slopinthebag »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #30
slopinthebag wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But had they invested in nuclear perhaps coal would be down to 0% today, and the same cost reduction would have applied to nuclear instead, with nuclear being orders of magnitude cheaper?

If they had invested in nuclear in 2000, they'd have maybe 3 plants built by now.

3 > 0

Re: Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

#36

Post by throw0101d »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #32
throw0101d wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which dropped from 55% of electricity from coal in 1990 to 23% today. From 400 million tons to 130 tons. And how much lower would have it been if they had chosen to keep their existing nuclear and reduce/retire their coal and/or gas? Certainly if they did not want to build new nuclear that's one thing, but they chose to keep the emitting stuff , which was really stupid IMHO. Even now it'd be viable to re-start some…

None? In 1990 those power plants were online and yet 55% of electricity was from coal.

What was the European grid mix in 1990? What were German energy imports/exports in that time frame? I would hazard to guess that the larger context of energy has changed quite a bit in the EU in the last few decades.

Germany coal is not estimated to be eliminated for another 5-6 years:

* https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/germanys-coal-exit-quie...

How many gigawatts of coal generation could have been shutdown already if nuclear was still generating its gigawatts?

Re: Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

#37

Post by teamonkey »

hunterpayne wrote: post #7

This article is largely non-scientific propaganda. LCOE is a fake stat that is never used to actually calculate any cost at any point. And anytime you use variable generation, you need to keep a spinning reserve, otherwise you get a blackout like what happened in Spain. HN should be ashamed to post such an article full of misinformation and half-truths not based on how engineering actually works.

You don’t need spinning reserve, but you do need enough reserve power that can supply grid-forming generation on demand.

Batteries can react fast enough to peaks and troughs in voltage load, so long as there are enough of them where needed. Grid-forming batteries can react to frequency fluctuations electronically.

Flywheels are another approach for grid stabilisation without a baseload.

Re: Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

#38

Post by infamia »

bluGill wrote: post #13
infamia wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's logically incoherent to try to determine what level of inflexible power generation will meet "the baseload". Lots of folks don't know that coal and gas fired plants are able to turn down their power generation more than 90% (i.e., "ten to one turn down"). It's definitely true that cold restarts take a while. However, they often rather quickly and dramatically change their power output profile while running.

That depends on the design. Gas fired plants typically can turn down that much. However many coal plants cannot. The older the design the less likely it can turn down far.

> That depends on the design. ... The older the design the less likely it can turn down far.

I don't doubt there's a small number of plants that can't do 10-1. That said, transmitters are intended to be replaced and upgraded regularly since they have a finite lifespan (they're cheap anyhow). 10-1 has been around for 35+ years now and you're really lucky to get 20 years out of a transmitter.

Re: Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

#39

Post by bluGill »

infamia wrote: post #38
bluGill wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends on the design. Gas fired plants typically can turn down that much. However many coal plants cannot. The older the design the less likely it can turn down far.

> That depends on the design. ... The older the design the less likely it can turn down far. I don't doubt there's a small number of plants that can't do 10-1. That said, transmitters are intended to be replaced and upgraded regularly since they have a finite lifespan (they're cheap anyhow). 10-1 has been around for 35+ years now and you're really lucky to get 20 years out of a transmitter.

I don't know what you mean by transmitter.

I know of one factory that has their own coal power plant. The boiler is from the 1880s, the generator installed in the 1920s. It is horribly inefficient by any reasonable standard and takes hours to turn on. However because they keep it operational the power company gives them a massive discount on electric. About ever 5 years there is a major event and the power company has them turn it on for a few days and they power the entire town.

Re: Baseload Is a Myth (2024)

#40

Post by bryanlarsen »

slopinthebag wrote: post #35
bryanlarsen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they had invested in nuclear in 2000, they'd have maybe 3 plants built by now.

3 > 0

Germany has installed the equivalent of about 25 nukes worth of solar & wind.

And 3 is definitely not enough to provide any sort of cost scaling benefits.

Post reply on HN