You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently it's ordered as following: Baseload, Variable Uncontrolled (Solar + Wind), Storage, Variable Controlled, Exchanges (in Consumption mode).
Simplified we can say it's baseload sources, uncontrolled sources and then balancing sources.
The main difference here is that gas is/was not considered as baseload source but rather as balancing/peak production source.
Maybe this has shifted some but is still the case for a lot of regions.
Here are some examples:
Netherlands:
You can see that it's gas that is being reduced when solar picks up while coal is almost a flat line.
Queensland Australia:
Here gas is only being used between the solar peaks. And while coal is bing reduced it's simply because of the magnitude of solar.
Texas (ERCOT):
Here we can also see that it's mainly gas that is being reduced and not "baseload" such as coal and nuclear.
So I'd say we are already implementing this to an extent. Maybe it can be improved but I opt for the best strategy that will highlight the zones that have decarbonized the most or an in progress of doing so.
Germany is a good example of the other way though as they seem to be replacing baseload coal with baseload gas, which is good short term for lowering their emissions but they still rely on fossil fuels to a very large extent, same with Poland.
Is it maybe an idea to move the more baseload energy providers like nuclear, coal and gas to the bottom and then the flexible/volatile sources on top?
So basically move gas downward, and sun and wind to the top.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: