This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuclear power plants do not take days to reach the required temperature. This is a false belief. I do not have the proof in written form, and for this reason I write it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.62.103.169 ( talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths is a political piece, certainly not npov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.96.216 ( talk) 21:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The opening paragraph cites EnergyVortex, which claims to be "an open industry energy site designed to serve as a B2B community and e-commerce center." It does not seem to be an energy industry regulatory, academic, scientific or professional body.
I wish to contests the statement "Baseload values typically vary from hour to hour in most commercial and industrial areas", since it appears to conflict with the opening statement that "Baseload is the minimum amount of power that a utility or distribution company must make available to its customers". If a customer is significantly intermittent or discretionary in their use of energy as per the vagaries of commercial and industrial activity then isn't the baseload for that area still the minimum amount of power that a utility or distribution company must make available to its customers, which might be the "hotel load" of a EAF specialty metals steel mini-mill when the EAF steel mill is not producing, but would include a predominantly and continuously on EAF recycling steel mill (for example)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.254 ( talk) 02:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
http://www.foe.org.au/baseload-power-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work Extract The renewable energy deniers rehash, among others, the old myth that renewable energy is unreliable in supplying base-load demand. In a previous article I reported on the initial results of computer simulations by a research team at the University of New South Wales that busted the myth that renewable energy cannot supply base-load demand. However at the time of the article I was still under the misconception that some base-load renewable energy supply may be needed to be part of the renewable energy mix.
Since then Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and I have performed thousands of computer simulations of 100% renewable electricity in the National Electricity Market (NEM), using actual hourly data on electricity demand, wind and solar power for 2010. Our latest research finds that generating systems comprising a mix of different commercially available renewable energy technologies, located on geographically dispersed sites, do not need base-load power stations to achieve the same reliability as fossil-fuelled systems BLOCKED LINK.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Institute of Environmental Studies at University of New South Wales. 60.242.247.177 ( talk) 12:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Base load. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, and regardless of the intentions, this article -- which is literally titled "load" -- is all about power production, and as such has gone off into the weeds of left/right political/power dynasties and legends and possible futures. In short, as-is it's ridiculous.
Base load is just that -- the (electrical) load required/demanded by the base...whatever that base is. As such, "base load" is a noun...not an adjective. A power plant is capable of supporting that "base load" if it does indeed provide a substantial percentage of the overall base demand.
Sheesh.
-- 104.15.130.191 ( talk) 11:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Per Merriam-Webster..."baseload" is indeed a noun, not an adjective:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baseload
-- 104.15.130.191 ( talk) 11:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@ GliderMaven: Flexible generation is always more expensive than baseload generation. If you build a plant that can produce any time, and then you use it only half the time, the capital costs per kWh produced are double. No matter what the technology is, any flexible generation source used only some of the time is more expensive than if used constantly. This is a fundamental economic aspect (and limitation) of grids with high penetration of renewable energy, and I think it should be clear in the article. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand if the price of solar is divided by 4 every 10 year ( Swanson's law) and the system cost of 100% renewable is 4 times higher than the cost of renewable on it's own, this means that in 10 years the system cost of solar panels in a 100% flexible generation system is lower than baseload generation. -- PJ Geest ( talk) 13:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The article says:
Unvarying power plants can be coal, nuclear, combined cycle plants, which may take several days to start up and shut down, hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas, biomass, solar thermal with storage and ocean thermal energy conversion.
I understand that if cost and the environment were ignored any kind of plant could be baseload. But surely nowadays if baseload is needed at all it should be geothermal or nuclear shouldn’t it? Because they are low-carbon and high capital cost. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the article should not use these phrases. My belief is that these phrases are concerned with reliability of supply and are beyond the scope of the article. The term base load is concerned with classical power engineering, where base load power generators, such as coal and nuclear, are built to supply the minimum or base load. The remaining load is supplied with on demand generators such as gas and hydro. The term base load has nothing to with the modern debate over whether renewables backed up by other technologies can provide reliable power. A wind or solar generator isn't a base load power generator. Obviously and so what. Caviare ( talk) 02:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nuclear power plants do not take days to reach the required temperature. This is a false belief. I do not have the proof in written form, and for this reason I write it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.62.103.169 ( talk) 11:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2009-09_FourNuclearMyths is a political piece, certainly not npov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.96.216 ( talk) 21:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
The opening paragraph cites EnergyVortex, which claims to be "an open industry energy site designed to serve as a B2B community and e-commerce center." It does not seem to be an energy industry regulatory, academic, scientific or professional body.
I wish to contests the statement "Baseload values typically vary from hour to hour in most commercial and industrial areas", since it appears to conflict with the opening statement that "Baseload is the minimum amount of power that a utility or distribution company must make available to its customers". If a customer is significantly intermittent or discretionary in their use of energy as per the vagaries of commercial and industrial activity then isn't the baseload for that area still the minimum amount of power that a utility or distribution company must make available to its customers, which might be the "hotel load" of a EAF specialty metals steel mini-mill when the EAF steel mill is not producing, but would include a predominantly and continuously on EAF recycling steel mill (for example)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.254 ( talk) 02:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
http://www.foe.org.au/baseload-power-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work Extract The renewable energy deniers rehash, among others, the old myth that renewable energy is unreliable in supplying base-load demand. In a previous article I reported on the initial results of computer simulations by a research team at the University of New South Wales that busted the myth that renewable energy cannot supply base-load demand. However at the time of the article I was still under the misconception that some base-load renewable energy supply may be needed to be part of the renewable energy mix.
Since then Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and I have performed thousands of computer simulations of 100% renewable electricity in the National Electricity Market (NEM), using actual hourly data on electricity demand, wind and solar power for 2010. Our latest research finds that generating systems comprising a mix of different commercially available renewable energy technologies, located on geographically dispersed sites, do not need base-load power stations to achieve the same reliability as fossil-fuelled systems BLOCKED LINK.
Dr Mark Diesendorf is Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Institute of Environmental Studies at University of New South Wales. 60.242.247.177 ( talk) 12:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Base load. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:12, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
For some reason, and regardless of the intentions, this article -- which is literally titled "load" -- is all about power production, and as such has gone off into the weeds of left/right political/power dynasties and legends and possible futures. In short, as-is it's ridiculous.
Base load is just that -- the (electrical) load required/demanded by the base...whatever that base is. As such, "base load" is a noun...not an adjective. A power plant is capable of supporting that "base load" if it does indeed provide a substantial percentage of the overall base demand.
Sheesh.
-- 104.15.130.191 ( talk) 11:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Per Merriam-Webster..."baseload" is indeed a noun, not an adjective:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/baseload
-- 104.15.130.191 ( talk) 11:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
@ GliderMaven: Flexible generation is always more expensive than baseload generation. If you build a plant that can produce any time, and then you use it only half the time, the capital costs per kWh produced are double. No matter what the technology is, any flexible generation source used only some of the time is more expensive than if used constantly. This is a fundamental economic aspect (and limitation) of grids with high penetration of renewable energy, and I think it should be clear in the article. -- Ita140188 ( talk) 04:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
On the other hand if the price of solar is divided by 4 every 10 year ( Swanson's law) and the system cost of 100% renewable is 4 times higher than the cost of renewable on it's own, this means that in 10 years the system cost of solar panels in a 100% flexible generation system is lower than baseload generation. -- PJ Geest ( talk) 13:07, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
The article says:
Unvarying power plants can be coal, nuclear, combined cycle plants, which may take several days to start up and shut down, hydroelectric, geothermal, biogas, biomass, solar thermal with storage and ocean thermal energy conversion.
I understand that if cost and the environment were ignored any kind of plant could be baseload. But surely nowadays if baseload is needed at all it should be geothermal or nuclear shouldn’t it? Because they are low-carbon and high capital cost. Chidgk1 ( talk) 14:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I think the article should not use these phrases. My belief is that these phrases are concerned with reliability of supply and are beyond the scope of the article. The term base load is concerned with classical power engineering, where base load power generators, such as coal and nuclear, are built to supply the minimum or base load. The remaining load is supplied with on demand generators such as gas and hydro. The term base load has nothing to with the modern debate over whether renewables backed up by other technologies can provide reliable power. A wind or solar generator isn't a base load power generator. Obviously and so what. Caviare ( talk) 02:43, 15 May 2024 (UTC)