|
|
|
|
|
|
by cycomanic
38 days ago
|
|
|
That's not how electricity markets operate. Say you have 100GW demand (number are not in any way related to reality) and your Nuclear plant has a capacity of 50 GW. However it's a sunny day and solar is producing 80 GW. That solar will be producing at a much lower price, so no one is interested in buying that extra expensive 30 GW from the Nuclear plant (I'm glancing a bit over how pricing works exactly, but it comes to the same thing). So either you restrict the amount of solar that can be produced or you subsidize the Nuclear prices. Both solutions are increasing prices for idiological reasons. If we do that might as well invest in solutions that are on exponential trajectories, like solar and battery. The whole baseload argument when talking about renewables is a strawman. Both intermittent (like solar and wind) and constant output (like Nuclear) are baseload technologies, despite working very differently. Both require over provisioning, on demand sources or storage. It does not make any sense to bet on a solution that despite significant subsidise over almost 70 years has failed to produce any exponential count reduction, if the other solution is on an exponential curve right now. |
|
|
For mis-designed electricity markets, see also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000–2001_California_electrici...
It can be fixed easily by giving priority to reliable producers and only allowing intermittent producers in once the reliable producers are used up.
> The whole baseload argument when talking about renewables is a strawman
No. It is actually essential, because intermittent renewables cannot reliably supply electricity, yet we need reliable electricity supply.
Intermittents are not baseload technology, because they cannot reliably supply electricity when needed.