[jhayward]

This mis-states how electrical generation markets work and relies on the fallacy of "baseload", which is an artifact created by the past-grid domination of large thermal plants for generation.

In my market (Texas/ERCOT) there is no separate market for "firm" power. You either run or you don't on an every-15-minutes basis. You are either a price "taker", or a price "maker". In this market the NPPs are always, always, price "takers". They absolutely compete with the price makers, which are always either wind, solar, or most commonly, natural gas.

Coal is always a price "taker" in this market as well.

Whether a generator is a "taker" or "maker" in terms of pricing is a function of the economic impact to it of not running in a given bid segment, and its ability to compete in the bidding for the "last MW" of the bid-price stack.

Large thermal plants like NPPs rely very much on the economics of being able to get premium pricing for every single minute of the day and night. In a competetive market they can't do that, because gas/wind/solar can under-price them by very large margins. So the NPPs become un-economic to run (if already running), and very much un-fundable to build as new capacity. The same market force applies to coal.

[scott_s]

Your rationale does not address the core argument of the piece, which is that as reliance on intermittent energy sources approaches 100%, their cost will rise steeply.

[jhayward]

It's not necessary to do a piece by piece rebuttal of a professional "skeptic", who is a neuroscientist, and whose reasoning relies on someone who worked at Shellenberger's "breakthrough institute", which existed solely to provide pseudo-scientific buttressing for the message that renewable energy is bad, and the climate change, if it's happening, isn't really that bad.

You are essentially using Shellenberger-provided articles as proof that Shellenberger isn't a con artist. It's all bunk. Top to bottom, same game plan.

[scott_s]

I refer to them because their arguments make sense to me - they seem measured and nuanced. I've encountered a lot of pseudo-science, and this has none of the hallmarks that I associate with it. The argument is not that renewables are bad, but they alone are not enough. Can you point to something that provides a counter-argument?