News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nuclear is back on the table for a green future. Parent comment

Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by cycomanic on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @04:15PM (#31758847)
Your argument does not follow at all. I have the impression that you don't know what baseload is. Baseload is the minimum amount of demand over a given time (it is not a measure of supply at all).

The previous poster talked about using fossil (or any other means) to supply the mismatch between the supply and demand at the times where such a mismatch might exist. This is completely unrelated to baseload, it could in fact be larger than baseload. Note that such a mismatch would also exist for nuclear (dependent on overprovisioning). However it would in general be only needed of short periods of time.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by philwelch on Wednesday June 15, 2022 @08:00PM (#31760988)
It could be larger than baseload, but it's unlikely to be any less than baseload.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by cycomanic on Thursday June 16, 2022 @12:15AM (#31762386)
They are completely unrelated and yes in general they would be much smaller than baseload. Why wouldn't it? What the GP described is essentially what gas peakers do.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nuclear is back on the table for a green future by philwelch on Thursday June 16, 2022 @03:22PM (#31769884)
> yes in general they would be much smaller than baseload. Why wouldn't it?

Because if your baseload is your minimum power consumption (which generally occurs at night) and you have a windless night (therefore your renewables are generating 0 power), your "gas peakers" will have to provide the entire baseload amount of power.

[ Parent | on HN ]