The point of the baseload argument isn’t the “desirability” of power sources that can provide baseload, it’s the necessity. Renewables that can be scaled up (i.e. not niche cases like geothermal) are all too inconsistent to replace the entirety of generation without storage. Other tactics like long range transmission can reduce the amount of storage needed but not eliminate it. Fully replacing generation with renewables isn’t just unprofitable without storage, it’s impossible.

Storage is making great strides but for it to get good enough to fully convert the grid we need qualitative advances in the underlying technology, not just manufacturing scale driving down prices.

▲

pfdietz 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

There is necessity with baseload plants: they have to be run at high capacity factor or else their economics go all to hell. This is especially true of nuclear where capex dominates. So describing something as "baseload" is actually describing a defect: it's a generation technology that cannot be practically dispatched.

▲

johncolanduoni 3 days ago | parent [-]

It’s only a defect if you try to make the grid 100% nuclear, just like solar’s variation is only a defect if you try to go 100% solar. It’s not a competition where either is likely to “win”, they’re just two different tools for power generation.

▲

bryanlarsen 3 days ago | parent [-]

It wouldn't be a defect if it was complementary to solar. But it's the same defect as solar/wind, so it is a defect.

▲

johncolanduoni 3 days ago | parent [-]

How is it the same defect? Nuclear plants can run all the time and have to if they have any hope of recouping investment. Solar can’t run all the time but is super cheap so it doesn’t have to. You still need responsive capacity but even if you keep natural gas around for that you’ve made a massive dent in fossil fuel usage - bigger than solar or nuclear could do without the other.

	▲	bryanlarsen 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		Both nuclear & solar produce power at times when it's not wanted. Same defect. If you were building a grid from scratch in a typical American region, and you were aiming for lowest cost, you'd overbuild solar enough that it handles 100% of demand on a sunny evening, add enough wind to handle 100% of demand on a dark + windy evening, then add about 3 days of battery storage. That'll supply you over 95% of your energy needs. But that's not 95% of the power, it's 100% of the power 95% of the time. So you also need to supply 100% of the power 5% of the time somehow else. That's not 100% of peak, since peak is during air conditioning demand when solar works, but 100% of almost peak. The cheapest way to do that is low efficiency single cycle natgas. CCS natgas is 1/20th the cost of nuclear, and single cycle is about half the cost of CCS. So if you make 2.5% of that nuclear, you've doubled the cost. And you've saved a few hours worth of carbon emission, 2.5% of 5%. If you want to be carbon-neutral, you use syngas instead of natgas. Yes, syngas is 6X as expensive, but fuel is not the main cost of a peaker plant running <= 5% of the time.

▲

bruce511 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Of course electricity at night is highly desirable. But there are no economic incentives to build it.

From a purely financial point of view, base load is not appealing. Whereas cheap solar is appealing. If I have a billion$ to invest, I know which one I'm choosing. I'm maximizing return, not "societal good". Which is why govt is best placed to build base load, since they optimize for societal good, not profit.

To make base load appealing to investors we need expensive power at night. But that's countered by local battery storage.

To be clear, this is not a "what we need" argument. It's a capital argument. Private Power suppliers chase profit, and there's more profit in daytime power than nighttime power.

▲

johncolanduoni 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Of course electricity at night is highly desirable. But there are no economic incentives to build it.

Wait, what? Who is going to accept having no power at night at their house? Ignoring the fact that the intra-utility trade does provide a direct economic incentive, nobody is going to live somewhere the power companies can’t keep the lights on 24 hours a day most days (in the developed world anyway).

	▲	bruce511 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You're looking at this from the consumer point of view. But consumers provide income, not capital. Consumers may, or may not, have a choice of power providers. They can choose to "accept" what is on offer, or remove themselves from the grid. But they have very little negotiating power. Actually it's pretty easy for (residential and office consumers to spend their own capital on batteries and inverters. Most homes consume (or can be set to consume) reasonably low power at night. A 20 kw/h battery will cover most homes easily. (Solar panels aren't necessary for this.) The capital cost, and savings therefrom, put a hard limit on what suppliers can charge for night time power. And of course storage is just as attractive to suppliers. (More capital-attractive than say a nuclear plant.) As consumers we are used to simply announcing our needs. And assuming companies will expend any capital necessary to meet those needs. In practice it doesn't work that way, as rural phone/internet/cable consumers will testify. Once you see electricity generation as a capital issue, not a consumer issue, things get clearer.