[cbsmith]

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.

[throw0101d]

> 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.

[rcxdude]

It is a reasonable strategy if you have some non-intermittent generation that is significantly more economical than the other options. It's not a requirement for all grids in all technological contexts.

[bryanlarsen]

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.

[throw0101d]

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

With or without externalities like climate change costed in?

[bryanlarsen]

Yes. natgas + purchased carbon credits are cheaper than nuclear.

[Tostino]

Dude, that's like, our kids' problem.