One of the weirdest manipulations in the energy debates is the idea of 'baseload power'. The public has been…

One of the weirdest manipulations in the energy debates is the idea of 'baseload power'. The public has been led to believe this means the minimum amount of supply the energy grid needs to be able to supply, 24 hours per day. That's not what baseload means. 1/6 #auspol

Load is demand, not supply. The 'load' on the grid. Baseload power is the minimum amount of *demand* the grid needs, to prevent generators having to shut down clunky coal-fired plants and restart them again. Here it is, from AEMO. 2/6 https://t.co/3rSXq5bUws

'Operational demand'. And the critical thing, the 'minimum demand for secure mainland NEM operation'. Meaning go below that point of demand (not supply), and the grid becomes unstable. Coal plants are dinosaurs, they don't modulate well to shifts in demand. 3/6 https://t.co/7LhFGQPpLL

Politically this distortion of the meaning is deliberate, to contrast it with the apparent 'intermittency' of renewables. We need good, solid, 24/7 'baseload' power for 'when the sun doesn't shine and wind doesn't blow'. That's the (nonsense) narrative. 4/6

We need people to be continuously consuming energy, to prevent the dinosaur plants from falling over. That's what it really means. The continuous supply of power with renewables has been not only modelled extensively, it's actually happening in many places already. 5/6

It's not just batteries and other storage. Wind for example blows all day, often even more at night. And it's a grid, if it's not sunny or windy somewhere, it will be somewhere else. 'Firm' it with some gas if you have to, sure. You don't need leviathan generators. /end