Energy transition issues are not that simple....
Solar and wind generation in the contiguous 48 states decreases when people need more energy according to the EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) website (https://lnkd.in/g8iTcx5S). The following chart shows the generation of the four major green power sources vs the hourly demand data in the last week. It reveals that solar and wind produce more energy when people need less, and less energy when people need more. Hydro, on the other hand, grows with the demand, delivering when needed, and nuclear always delivers regardless of the demand. This has different implications. 👉 One implication is that solar and wind capture lower valued demand, while hydro and nuclear can capture value during those hours with higher demand when the energy is more valuable and better paid. 👉 Another implication is that solar and wind are not producing when the country requires more energy at peak hours, or during extreme weather conditions. This strong negative correlation makes intermittent clean options a poor choice for any grid unless they are backed up by fossil fuels. This illustrates how reliable green sources such as hydro, nuclear or geothermal are always a better option as they can deliver when needed without requiring a parallel fossil fuel backup generation fleet required by intermittent, uncontrollable sources.
Andreas ILIOU
7mo
Underlying this claim are three key assumptions. First, that baseload power is actually a good and necessary thing. In fact, what it really means is too much power when you don’t want it, and not enough when you do. What we need is flexible power (and flexible demand too) so that supply and demand can be matched instant by instant. “In the words of former Green Senator Christine Milne, ‘We are now in the midst of a fight between the past and the future.’ The refutation of the baseload fairy tale and other myths falsely denigrating renewable energy are a key part of that struggle.” The second assumption is that nuclear power is a reliable baseload supplier. In fact it’s no such thing. All nuclear power stations are subject to tripping out for safety reasons or technical faults. That means that a 3.2GW nuclear power station has to be matched by 3.2GW of expensive ‘spinning reserve’ that can be called in at a moments notice. The third is that the only way to supply baseload power is from baseload power stations, such as nuclear, coal and gas, designed to run flat-out all the time whether their power is actually needed or not. That’s wrong too.
Solar & wind alone can't solve energy demand, you need other resources too.
Ravi Suri
7mo
The answer is blowing in the wind … grow Nuclear !
~29 000 大师 / 师傅 PV Legend /Consulting/Comissioning/Experienced Troubleshooter PV.... .since 1998-Elektro/Solar at Owner /Founder of Elektro-Solar(Munich) PTIA Consultant(Phnom Penh)
7mo.....another basically hoax story We are in a Mix of Energy Plants and they rotate with Energy supplied. It doesnt matter if they supply alot or less power as other Plants take over. It will always be the cheapest Plant is "producing " . Everything is All about How much is being built and How much can any source contribute. If Solar and Wind is producing less ,Storage is already boosting Energy and will so more and more with the upgrade and more and more Storage systems coming online. Virtual Power Plants can "use" small storage units in MWh scales. Its an ongoing Transition which makes Power cheaper ...... Thats the baseload problem right there !!!!! "Nuclear always delivers regardless of demand" So to say ,I leave the car always running ,somebody might want to drive it somewhere........ How stupid is that . Baseload is a Nightmare and totally inflexible Noone needs baseload anymore its a Dinosaur Technology ,make look Nuclear and Coal looking good regards ROI Clever Marketing but wasteful......