"Future is not baseload except we actually need baseload, but let's call it by different names like flexible generation and magical non-existent new types of storage"
The actual EU strategy hinges on multiple interacting elements. Making more of the demand steerable, to align peak use better with peak production. Overbuilding renewables capacity so it can still provide enough even at lower efficiency. Wind at sea at a never before seen scale (decided this week at the north sea conference) to have a form of base load (there is dunkelflaute but in general wind at sea is reliable at producing a certain amount of base load). And last but not least the EU hydrogen strategy, where a transport and storage network will be built similar to that for natural gas (in fact converting over that infrastructure), that then can be used to respond to demand in a steerable way, and that can be fed through shipping and pipelines from regions where renewables are most cost-effective at producing hydrogen.
Skeptics like to pretend the EU doesn’t have a renewables strategy beyond hope, but if you dig into it they (like in most things the EU does) have actually worked out a detailed and pragmatic strategy.
There is a strategy beyond populism and FUD?
> Overbuilding renewables capacity so it can still provide enough even at lower efficiency.
And the cost of overbuilding is?
> And last but not least the EU hydrogen strategy, where a transport and storage network will be built similar to that for natural gas
Again, some future magical solution with unspecified costs
For renewables? Absolutely huge. We would need 10-20x the nameplate power. Perhaps even more. The only reason renewables "work" at the moment is that all other energy sources work overtime to compensate.
(And the EU's hydrogen strategy is a huge green elephant -- but Timmerman has invested most of his political capital in it so the idea doesn't go away until he does.)
When combined with solar and wind they can all easily compete with nuclear power on cost, they're just more expensive than natural gas for peaking.
Very limited in where you can build it
> grid scale batteries
Don't exist. You severely underestimate the needs of the grid
> syngas
Aka burning furl and calling it carbon neutral. And have they passed the 1MW mark
There was a scientific study that looked this precise question and found 10x as many sites as necessary
>grid scale batteries Don't exist.
Your assertion is trivially disproven with a quick google.
>Aka burning furl and calling it carbon neutral
aka making hydrogen from excess solar/wind, storing it, burning it and turning that into electricity.
it's unfortunately only 50% efficient but that still makes it cheaper than nuclear power.
If there was no baseload you wouldn't care if intermittent power generation went to zero.
Because "Base load is the minimum level of demand on an electrical supply system over 24 h."
You've just described renewables.
> So the amount of energy which was previously part of "base load" will be reduced considerably.
There's a minimum of required electricity that you have to provide every day, and you can't escape that.
No, renewables are easy to regulate and nothing about them is slow. You can regulate solar in milliseconds, wind in a couple of seconds. They don't have to produce when there is no demand.
And yes, you have to provide as much electricity as is pulled from the grid. But that does no longer have to be done in a constant fashion as with nuclear and coal. That is why I write that "base load" is reduced. Overall energy consumption isn't. It will actually rise with the electrification of mobility and heating. That is, why there is a need for a huge buildup of renewables.
Renewables are among the slowest power sources to ramp up production. Which is complicated by the fact that they are intermittent.
> That is, why there is a need for a huge buildup of renewables.
1. At what cost
2. What happens to generation on a quiet night?
Ramping down renewables is lots faster and easier. The stability argument is just populistic bullshit. Plausible on the surface, not a concern in actual practice. You are acting like those who plan and build this renewable capacity never thought of that.
The goal with renewables is to reduce the total emissions. There are still plenty of years left in that process before you even need any storage to cover capacity fluctuation. Because even when covering SOME extra capacity with fossil fuels SOME of the times, total emissions are still getting reduced. Is it that some people just want to ignore that a coal plant that doesn't produce energy also doesn't produce emissions?
Ramp me up solar production in midnight.
And the source for this is? Because reality seems to disagree with you
> The stability argument is just populistic bullshit. Plausible on the surface, not a concern in actual practice
You're surprised that renewable energy is intermittent and you need to significantly overbuild them?
> You are acting like those who plan and build this renewable capacity never thought of that.
So many decisions in this space are made purely for political points, so you can see how yes, people who are building this rarely if ever talk abou this.
> The goal with renewables is to reduce the total emissions.
Note how if you don't shut down nuclear power plants you don't need to burn coal to make up for the difference.