Ok, bad wording. How about: It emerges from conventional fixed supply. In any case it's no law of nature. So not a concept that is necessarily relevant in the furure.
The relationship of supply and demand in the grid is an equation, if they don't match you get blackouts or other funky things. When you have dynamic pricing, variable supply works out, as nobody is obligated to produce any fixed amount of power.
Yeah,base load still exists as in the dictionary definition (floor of aggregate power supply and demand), but it ceases to be a fixed level that is a hard production quota.
> When you have dynamic pricing, variable supply works out, as nobody is obligated to produce any fixed amount of power.
No, thats not really how it works out.
Baseload should actually be called baseload demand. The idea of baseload demand, is that there is some minimum level of electricity, that will always be demanded, almost no matter how high prices go.
Or, in other words, there is some about electricity demand is very inelastic.
So no, you can't just increase electricity costs. Because then electricity costs will massively spike, and cause huge amounts of problems.
You are massively underestimating the amount of problems and costs that it would put in people for demand to be as elastic as you want it to be.
It would be way cheaper and better for everyone, if there was simply enough baseload supply to meet the baseload demand.
Texas illustrated what happens in the current old system if there are unexpected drops due to breakdowns in supply when consumers are relying on affordable supply following consumption. Pricing can't fix a situation like that.
Big problems maybe at first sight, but there are many ways of overcoming them. When automated price following behaviour is implemented in eg AC and heating and car charging systems, the spikes will be greatly lessened. Also, energy storage actors can sell into spikes, which will work to clip the spikes and encourage investment into energy storage.
Seriously.