Fracking!

[dannubis]

Especially when you don't agree with them... we get it.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No particularly when someone espouses something as spectacularly retarded as full nuclear.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Clue..... Nukes don't cycle. They run... and run at 100% capacity.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Cycling power sources comes from dependable sources that can spin up to meet peak demands and then be taken down accordingly. Like ohhh I don't know.... gas turbines.

[Aeson]

You are definitive proof that a broad vocabulary is no proof of a broad mind.

Your mind is obviously broad enough to accept negatively stereotyping vast swaths of humanity with verifiably incorrect statements. My mind is not so accepting of ignorance. This is actually a point in my favor ...

[Aeson]

You are definitive proof that a broad vocabulary is no proof of a broad mind.

Your mind is obviously broad enough to accept negatively stereotyping vast swaths of humanity with verifiably incorrect statements. My mind is not so accepting of ignorance. This is actually a point in my favor ...

[kentonio]

Clue..... Nukes don't cycle. They run... and run at 100% capacity.

This is relevant why?

Your mind is obviously broad enough to accept negatively stereotyping vast swaths of humanity with verifiably incorrect statements. My mind is not so accepting of ignorance. This is actually a point in my favor ...

Actually you regularly miss sarcasm and obvious hyperbole, and manage to do so with a quite soul crushing degree of tedium. Please point out which 'vast swathe of humanity' I've been negatively scapegoating.

[dannubis]

Clue..... Nukes don't cycle. They run... and run at 100% capacity.

I am well aware of general operational principles in power plants, thanks.

Also, given the context of the discussion I think it is safe to say that he meant that the required baseload should be as much as possible nuclear. Flex capacity of course has to come from gas turbines and the like.

[dannubis]

Defeated by cross post. Damn you kentonio

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

This is relevant why?

I think it is safe to say that he meant that the required baseload should be as much as possible nuclear

Right.

As I stated initially, "Its as if every post couldn't get more retarded until you read the next one. "

[kentonio]

I know it's not a generally accepted practice here, but I was asking a genuine question. I don't know a huge amount about the operation of power stations, so could you explain for me in laymans terms why the output thing is such a huge issue?

[dannubis]

Flexibility to match supply to demand on a short term.

You need this for power transmission network stability.

[kentonio]

But how is that particularly relevant? Again I'm not informed on the subject, but given that gas presumably needs a constant supply of a non-renewable source, and nuclear (kinda) doesn't, does over-producing energy really pose some massive issue? If so, it would seem logical to turn to something like 95% nuclear and make up the difference with renewables no?

[Aeson]

Actually you regularly miss sarcasm and obvious hyperbole, and manage to do so with a quite soul crushing degree of tedium.

If that's your way of admitting your statements were obviously not correct in they're assertions, I accept your backing away from them

As for whether it was intended to be hyperbole and sarcasm or not, I'll just say that it's difficult to discern which of your positions are intended to be ridiculous and ignorant, and which are just unintentionally so.

Please point out which 'vast swathe of humanity' I've been negatively scapegoating.

"Greens the world over" in this case.

[dannubis]

Ogie referred to your assertion to go 100 % nuclear because that would not be flexible enough (baseload vs peak capacity). Nuclear power plants don't "react fast enough" to avoid instabilities and your power supply across the network could become instable with balckouts as a consequence. This baseload versus peak capacity.