{"id":484507,"date":"2010-03-29T07:45:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-29T11:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864176.post-1416520266635651327"},"modified":"2010-03-29T08:10:26","modified_gmt":"2010-03-29T12:10:26","slug":"is-there-really-any-need-for-baseload-power","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/484507","title":{"rendered":"Is there really any need for baseload power ?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Tom Raftery has a post on the enduring “baseload fallacy<\/a>” (pdf) beloved of the nuclear power zealots – Is there really any need for baseload power?<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The electricity grid may not need \u201cbaseload\u201d generation sources like coal and nuclear to backup the variability of supply from renewables.<\/p>\n

Jon Wellinghof is the Chairman of the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC is an independent agency that amongst other things, regulates the interstate transmission of electricity, natural gas, and oil \u2013 for more on FERC\u2019s responsibilities see their About page. Chairman Wellinghoff has been involved in the energy industry for 30 years and appointed to the FERC as a commissioner by then president Bush in 2006.<\/p>\n

Last year, shortly after being appointed as Chairman of the FERC, Mr Wellinghoff announced that:<\/p>\n

No new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States\u2026.<\/p>\n

Wellinghoff said renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands. Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive, he added.<\/p>\n

\u201cI think baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism,\u201d he said. \u201cBaseload capacity really used to only mean in an economic dispatch, which you dispatch first, what would be the cheapest thing to do. Well, ultimately wind\u2019s going to be the cheapest thing to do, so you\u2019ll dispatch that first.\u201d\u2026<\/p>\n

\u201cWhat you have to do, is you have to be able to shape it,\u201d he added. \u201cAnd if you can shape wind and you can effectively get capacity available for you for all your loads.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo if you can shape your renewables, you don\u2019t need fossil fuel or nuclear plants to run all the time. And, in fact, most plants running all the time in your system are an impediment because they\u2019re very inflexible. You can\u2019t ramp up and ramp down a nuclear plant. And if you have instead the ability to ramp up and ramp down loads in ways that can shape the entire system, then the old concept of baseload becomes an anachronism.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

… However, a study published last week by the Maryland-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research backs Chairman Wellinghoff\u2019s assertion. In a study of North Carolina\u2019s electricity needs it concluded backup generation requirements would be modest for a system based largely on solar and wind power, combined with efficiency, hydroelectric power, and other renewable sources like landfill gas …<\/p>\n

With larger and more inter-connected electricity grids, the requirement for baseload falls even further because the greater the geographical spread of your grid, the greater the chances that the wind will be blowing or the sun shining in some parts of it.<\/p>\n

So, is there really any need for baseload power any more, or is this now just a myth perpetuated by those with vested interests?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n