"Baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism” former (FERC) Chairman Jon Wellinghoff
http://www.awea.org/Issues/Content.aspx?ItemNumber=5453(emphases my own)
Former Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Chairman Jon Wellinghoff has stated that “baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism” and that no new nuclear or coal plants may ever be needed in the United States.[1] This fact sheet explains why baseload power is an obsolete concept in a world where a variety of other resources can provide the three commodities needed by the power system – energy, capacity, and flexibility – at competitive prices. A combination of a large amount of renewable energy, combined with flexible natural gas plants and demand-response and efficiency, can ensure that our electric system has sufficient energy, capacity, and flexibility, and operates cost-effectively and reliably.
[font size="+1"]There Is No Inherent Need for "Baseload" Power [/font]
Reliable and cost-effective operation of the electric grid requires a mixture of three types of resources: energy (electricity), capacity (ability to generate electricity at a certain point in time), and flexibility (ability to "turn up" or "turn down" electricity generation as needed). Each of the various types of power plants that generate electricity – nuclear, coal, gas, hydroelectric, wind and others – may specialize in providing one or two of these attributes, but no power plant excels at providing all three.
"Baseload" plants, a term typically applied to nuclear or coal-fired power plants, provide energy and some capacity. Interestingly, other types of power plants can provide these resources, often at costs competitive with baseload plants. Wind plants can produce energy just as well or better than nuclear or coal plants, while natural gas plants can provide capacity at lower cost than nuclear or coal plants. Thus, despite claims to the contrary, there is no inherent need for baseload power.
Moreover, baseload power plants provide almost zero flexibility, even though flexibility is a power system need that is just as essential as energy or capacity. In contrast, wind energy makes very valuable contributions towards ensuring that the grid has the right mixture of energy, capacity, and flexibility.
(more)
= new reply since forum marked as read
First it calls Hydroelectric not flexible, when historically it has been the most flexible. Hydro power is the easiest to turn on and off. You do not have to heat anything up, just turn a the outlet on and into the electric generator.
Today, most electric power is kept back for peak loads. i.e. when peak loads are hit, the water behind the dams are released. When peak power drain drops, these are the first electrical plants to close down for they are the easiest to turn off and on (See Pump dams below for the use of water to "Store" electrical power).
Now, future hydro power may NOT be as easy to turn on or off as existing dams. Future hydro power is using existing rivers to push generators in the rivers. These would not be as easy to turn off or on, for the water in the river will always be flowing, but with new technology, this can became the new "base load" source and may be what the former head of the FERC was talking about (i.e. no more coal or nuclear plants, the flow of the Ohio and Mississippi river may be enough to provide that base power).
Side note: According to conventional Geographical rules, when a smaller river merges with a larger river, the larger river retains its name, the smaller river ends at that point. This rule was NOT followed in regards to the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. If that rule HAD been followed what we now call the Allegheny River, Ohio River and lower Mississippi river would be called the "Allegheny River" for when the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers meet at Pittsburgh and form the Ohio, the Allegheny River is the larger of the two. At Cairo Illinois what is called the "Middle Mississippi" merges with the Ohio, but the Ohio is the larger of the two river at that point (and thus the Allegheny River should end in the Gulf of Mexico not Pittsburgh). I bring this up for the OHIO is more important then the Upper Mississippi when it comes to both water flow AND commerce (In Pittsburgh the Monongahela was the smaller river, but do to the Pittsburgh Seam of Coal ran south from Pittsburgh, as did the Monongahela, the Monongahela River was and is the more important commercially then the Allegheny River).
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/421558/turbines-could-tap-the-mississippis-power/
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/how-hydrokinetic-energy-works.html#.VWZ72NJViko
http://energy.gov/eere/water/marine-and-hydrokinetic-energy-research-development
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_head_hydro_power
New hydrokinetic generation technologies are primarily in the development, demonstration, and pilot phases of deployment and have not yet been commercialized.
In 2011, the United States had less than 1 megawatt (MW) of installed hydrokinetic, as compared to more than 77,000 MW of conventional hydroelectric generation capacity.
Many hydrokinetic development projects are underway in the United States - as of 2011, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has issued 70 preliminary permits for hydrokinetic projects.
Some experts predict that hydrokinetic energy could provide 13,000 MW of new generation capacity to the United States by 2025.
http://www.c2es.org/technology/factsheet/Hydrokinetic
These are different but similar to Run of the River Generators, most older "Run of the River" Generators do have a dam associated with them, but the water being damned is not or later use, just to maintain a height for the generators to work, these new generators are to be used with current water flow NOT adjusted by dams or other structures other then the generators themselves.
For more on the older "Run of the River" Generators:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Run-of-the-river_hydroelectricity
Please note, today we have "Pump Storage" Dams, Dams built to hold water that is pump up to them for use during peak periods (During night time or other periods of low electrical demand, excess electrical power for "Base sources" are used to pump water up to these dams to be turned on during peak electrical demand periods:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pumped-storage_hydroelectric_power_stations
Some reference points. 77,000 MegaWatts of power is provided by conventional electrical power in the US today (This is 6% of total electrical power generated today in the US). Less then 1 MW is provided by Hydrokinetic system, but can be increased to 14,000 MWs of power can be on line by 2025.
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3
Wind is up to 4.4 %, it is about ready to beat out Hydro (7%) but a long way from replacing coal (Coal = 39%), Natural gas (27%) and Nuclear (19%). Hydrokinetic power will provide additional power but more in the baseline nature then the quick turn on and off of conventional hydro power.
Another source of Electrical power are the Lock and dams on the Upper Mississippi, Ohio, Monongahela and Allegheny Rivers. These Locks and Dams hold back water AND leave excess water flow through them, but the water does NOT run through any generators. The reason for this is historical, Pittsburgh Area Electrical Power was Coal and the Locks and Dams on the Monongahela River had been built to haul COAL. When the Corp of Engineers took them over in the 1890s, it was understood that if the Corp replaced the then existing dams, they would NOT generate electrical power so NOT to compete with Coal.
In the 1970s Congress did pass a law saying any municipality could opt to take over the electrical generation power of any Lock and Dam within their municipal boundaries for electrical generation on the first come, first get basis. Clarion, a down ridden river town, decided to take the Feds up on this, but then exercise a little known Pennsylvania law that said its borders was the entire river, and thus was the first to claim the electrical power on all of the locks and dams in Western Pennsylvania. Clarion then refused to actual do any work on converting these dams (I am one of those people who think the Pittsburgh Area Electrical Company put Clarion up to this, so they did not have to worry about having to buy any power generated through those locks and dams). Now, how good are the claims of Clarion is and open question. those claims have NOT been challenged. I bring this up for such locks and dams can be a steady source of electrical power for right now such locks and dams are retaining water, and with modern technology when that water is released it can power electrical generators (even when the water is used to fill the locks). Thus we do have SOME capacity to provide additional Hydro electrical power without the need to build any new dams.
Side note: The Corp of Engineers did convert its Conemaugh Dam on the Conemaugh River which flows into the Allegheny River, to provide electrical power. The Conemaugh river was NOT a Lock and Dam, but a dam designed to hold water to prevent flooding and then only for a few weeks a year, the rest of the year it is an open flood plan and a rails to trail area. When the dam was built in the 1950s, the Corp had to move a railroad, leaving the old rail line abandoned. Today that old railroad line goes over three stone bridges and then comes to Tunnels, that were filled up with Concrete when the dam was built. you have to climb a hill to get over the dam area. It is a nice trail, but the Corp did convert that dam to electrical generation:
http://www.conemaughvalleyconservancy.org/recreation/recreation.html
Map of the trail, showing the old and new rail lines:
