He continues:-
Quote:Blood Pressure has gone down, more re the article.
So, that big slab of brown you see is Victoria’s contribution to the baseload of the National Electricity Market, as in, the minimum load that was demanded for that 24 hour period.
It is all being provided by brown coal, and merged with the black coal from NSW and QLD and the brown coal and gas from SA, the emissions for the NEM are among the highest in the world per unit electricity.
It is beyond obvious that baseload, as a concept for designing and managing electricity supply in Australia, is and will remain utterly relevant.
The only problem with the graph above is that the baseload supplier is brown coal.
Were that a zero-carbon source of any kind, we ought not care.
It should also be beyond obvious that if you have power generators that can provide that big horizontal slab of demand every day, it would be economically stupid not to build a system around running them at all times, and let other generators deliver the intermediate and peak load above it.
Re above ME - AGREED if it is more efficient and cost effective.
Thirdly we see the mountain-like profile in green, which is electricity from wind.
This, like PV, is non-dispatchable, so when it’s coming, everything else has to make way.
In the course of seven days, supply varies from over 15,000 MW on June 28 to near-zero across the entire NEM at about midday on July 1.
This is nothing whatsoever to do with demand, and everything to do with the weather.
In this “baseload myth” world, Australia needs to design and manage an electricity supply system to accommodate that level of change not as an unforeseen contingency, but as a part of regular operations.
Re above ME - Yes, weather related supplementary availability of power therefore forcing baseload requirements to retreat,
BUT ONLY IF THIS POWER IS AVAILABLE AND BID AT A REDUCED PRICE OR LOWER THAN THE AVAILABLE BASELOAD COST.
Then the argument is HOW IS THE PRICE of weather related power JUSTIFIED? IS IT more efficient?
How is the Return on Investment calculated with these?
Pundits would have you believe this power is free from the sun and wind, when really it has less life, highly susceptible to changes in and required technology, high infrastructure costs, huge distribution costs with interconnections spread over large distances. Then of course there is the weather itself. What would people rather a stable power system supply not subject to this type of weather enforcement or one that has the capability of placing the baseload at higher risk?
Design a system to accommodate as part of regular operations those things that are not regular operations or requirements, HE SAYS.
He SPEAKS WITH FORK TONGUE unless the power is converted and stored as required such as Enormous battery requirements or small off the grid communities with backup power from there own generators and not the grid.
Basically he is full of it in when comparing the little that is supplied from supplementary power. In other words He wants us to pay for those requirements and not private enterprise.
Even the relative outsider to electricity supply can see that a straight replacement of the horizontal line of supply shown in the first figure with something zero-carbon is the lowest risk, highest certainty, lowest disruption path to getting the job done. Imagine a grid that had done exactly that for over 13 million people…
Re Above Me , what a load of horse manure, should read even the relative outsider can see a straight line replacement with something zero carbon and near totally dependent on the weather is high risk, high cost, places greater demands on true baseload cost effective supply and electrical system requirements to maintain a stable, cost efficient essential supply of electricity to all customers and not just those who can afford to pay for there own off grid requirements. My reply to him would be pharque off and build your own.
Cheers #**
Forum
Pages: 
no such thing as baseload power demand (Read 8434 times)
