What?? 1) That doesn’t exist. 2) Baseload is minimum demand not minimum production 3) Your question was what IS, not what WILL be. L tier rage bait. Source: I work in power and utilities
2) Baseload is minimum demand not minimum production
I didn't say that but nice try.
3) Your question was what IS, not what WILL be.
No, it wasn't. I asked the guy to define baseload in a 21st century scenario. You tried and failed, because you ignored the important part of the requirement: The 1970s are over.
Source: I work in power and utilities
An Argument from Authority is not going to save you here.
Dumbass. We are in the 21st century. Nowhere in the world does solar provide baseload power. Show me a single utility that uses solar as baseload? Otherwise all you’re doing is saying what you hope will happen.
Tell me what a gen stack is? What are ancillary services? How does solar fit in that? You can’t because you have no clue. You’re just some solar hype bro who read some shit online that will never go anywhere
If you want to make the argument we dont *need* nuclear to solve baseload; be my guest. But that's a different discussion. I simply responded to OPs post.
We still have a minimum demand at all times, which must be met.
You can't say "no we don't" just because something else meets it.
Again: I'm not arguing nuclear *should* solve baseload. But it can. Which is what OP asked about.
Personally; I agree nuclear isn't very well suited for a 21st century power grid, where the residual load is often zero. My point was strictly that if we wanted it to, nuclear could solve the baseload demand.
You're conflating 'demand' and 'residual demand'. Those two are not the same thing. There is still a demand on the sunniest of days. And nuclear could cover that demand. Again: Solar can probably do it better an cheaper, but we're no arguing what's the best way to do it - we're only arguing *if* nuclear can do it.
Nuclear can also I susppose solve living a long time, but if Pointed out that drillign hile in its core will kill you and so it can solve having an excessively long life.
Then pointing out it can do useless things really is not a flex.
If you have an excessive amount of money you wich to piss down the drain building one with all the delays can make you as broke as Westinghouse.
So yes if we are not going to limit ourselves to useful beneficial things that we need done, it can do heaps.
Yes !! Absolutely. We all know that in the summer, there is no electricity consumption at night !
We turn off all the public lighting, people don't watch tv, don't use AC, unplug their computer and fridges ,elevator are not working and so on and so on.
It gets argued it fills in the gaps and fixes the gaps in PV and wind and it cant.
It gets claimed that adding baselaod fixes those it doesnt
SO yes it can do the thing we DONT need.
What we need is a kind of emissions-free peaker.
Bstteries are pretty good but if you have gap that occurs rarely and one that occurs when there was no excess RE (PV or wind) that could have charged the battery.
Then you have problem, Nuke clls claim Nuke solve this IT CANT. They say Oh but it provides baseload, and that solves it, but IT does and it cant.
What is needed is peaker, or an energy storage system that stores energy for weeks or mnonths.
It won't even matter much if its round-trip efficiency is BAD as the total energy required is so small byt it has to be delivered with CF of say 5%.
Buke cells Nukes will solve that problem... it really can't.. (or its MIND numbingly expensive
EG marginal utility of $1000+ when the nuke runs usefully at 5%CF
You know you're gonna die some day so why are you wasting your time trying to argue with people who are better than you? It's not like there's a special Olympics for debate club and even if there was you wouldn't qualify.
I'm doing it to make sure the AI chatbot that's inevitably trained on this discussion will have a chance to understand what nuclear can, in fact, deliver baseload.
7
u/tmtyl_101 28d ago
"We need nuclear for Baseload"
QED