The ironic part is that baseload is usually brought up by nuclear proponents along with comments about storage not being able to fill in the gaps.

Yet pumped hydro storage was originally implemented in the 70's because nuclear of the time couldn't do peaking power. It was envisioned as a way to move cheap nuclear power generation from the nighttime lows to daytime peaks.

Baseload is just a cost optimization. We need a power system that meeds demand 24/7/365. If we've done that then we've also provided baseload, by definition.

The article concedes that there is an actual base load that's real (so not a myth) but then talks about another sort of related thing and says that's dumb.

Okay, but that isn't really base load. That's the other thing. Base load is real. It's statistics.

> This part is still true, a meaningful amount of load is always required somewhere on the grid.

> The gap in understanding comes with the second factor: belief that it is inherently more efficient to match this load with big thermal generation.

> This comes from a historical contingency, where large stable loads matched very well with traditional coal-fired and nuclear power plants. These burn coal (or fission) to heat water, creating steam that then drives a turbine to generate electricity.

> In both cases, getting the water up to temperature can take hours, and these plants do not handle fluctuations in demand well. They are much more efficient running steadily at a given rate. But, when operated at that steady rate, these large plants were historically some of the most cost effective available.

> As a result, in most places a layered system of generators was built with large, slow-but-efficient coal and nuclear plants designed to serve the ‘baseload’ that would always be required. On top of this, faster-but-more-expensive gas, oil, and hydroelectric generators were layered.

This model doesn't make sense. Suppose you have an existing setup with some coal plants and some oil plants. The coal plants like to stay on; the oil plants are more indifferent.

There's a baseline load reflecting the amount of power demanded at almost all times of the day or night in whatever region contains this setup.

Now we add some more coal plants. They like to stay on. They hate turning off.

What will happen is that the local baseline load rises to accommodate the greater supply of power. Also, the price of electricity will go down.

It just isn't the case that the amount of power people consume within any given region is independent of the power supply to that region! The baseload is set by the amount of power being delivered; it's logically incoherent to try to determine what level of inflexible power generation will meet "the baseload". Almost any level will.

I think the lede is a bit buried here. The key point is that when renewables levelized cost is cheaper than the marginal cost of other sources (and I'll add, particularly when its below the fuel-only cost) the ability to economically displace those other sources is extremely strong.

This article is largely non-scientific propaganda. LCOE is a fake stat that is never used to actually calculate any cost at any point. And anytime you use variable generation, you need to keep a spinning reserve, otherwise you get a blackout like what happened in Spain. HN should be ashamed to post such an article full of misinformation and half-truths not based on how engineering actually works.

One thing I don’t understand is environmentalists seemingly unbounded hatred of nuclear energy. If the goal is to reduce carbon emissions and switch to clean energy, nuclear is a way to do that, but it seems like many of them would rather use coal (see Germany). I simply don’t understand this.