Do we need baseload?

Fossil fuel has been clinging on for survival using many claims, among them one being the need for steady baseload power. But now experts in the US are questioning this claim.

The electricity grid may not need “baseload” generation sources like coal and nuclear to backup the variability of supply from renewables. Renewables like wind, solar and biomass can provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands. Nuclear and coal plants are too expensive, they aver.

Baseload capacity was more apt in an economic sense to mean that you dispatch first, what would be the cheapest thing to do. Given that wind’s going to be the cheapest thing to do, that will take over. So, all it requires is proper management of the renewable mix. Most plants running all the time in your system are more an impediment as they’re very inflexible. (You can’t ramp up and ramp down a nuclear plant.)

A study published last week by the Maryland-based Institute for Energy and Environmental Research notes how North Carolina’s electricity needs can be met with a modest back-up based largely on solar and wind power, combined with efficiency, hydroelectric power, and other renewable sources like landfill gas.

Solar and wind energy are complementary in most places and can be used in tandem to make an efficient system contributing a major part of the power demand, said the study.

Drawing wind power from different areas — the coast, mountains, the sounds or the ocean — reduces variations in generation. When hydroelectric and other renewable sources are added, the gap to be filled is surprisingly small.

So, is there really any need for baseload power when looking at a change to renewables?