Because small scale breakdowns are irrelevant with today’s power grids. Redundancy is provided via the next city/country nearby. Importing the power might be a few cents more expensive during peak hours, but that’s nothing compared to the costs of having an outdated power plant doing nothing for years.
However, the real answer why he’s being down voted is because it’s a pretend intellectual argument favoured by people against renewable power generation, without actually contributing anything of worth.
I’m not sure why you’re getting down votes for this. Isn’t having some redundancy or backup plan a good idea? What am I missing here?
Because small scale breakdowns are irrelevant with today’s power grids. Redundancy is provided via the next city/country nearby. Importing the power might be a few cents more expensive during peak hours, but that’s nothing compared to the costs of having an outdated power plant doing nothing for years.
However, the real answer why he’s being down voted is because it’s a pretend intellectual argument favoured by people against renewable power generation, without actually contributing anything of worth.
Likely because the coal plant was set to retire anyway. No point in paying someone millions to keep this coal plant as a backup for rare events.
The Power company will have contingencies and the national grid to rely on, which are cheaper than keeping an old coal plant warm.