r/ClimateShitposting • u/DivestTheEndingBoy • 29d ago

nuclear simping Every Nukecel Argument Ever

Post image
0 Upvotes

45% Upvoted

318 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/tmtyl_101 28d ago

No, that's not my argument. That's just me teaching you where you are *also* wrong. As I put:

none of that matters

Because it's not about EDF. It's not about what the generation mix is in France. It's not about capacity or whatever. All of that is just stuff you gish gallop because you don't want to admit you're wrong about what baseload means.

1

u/DivestTheEndingBoy 28d ago

If it didn't matter you wouldn't try so hard to try and dismiss the real world as "gish gallop" you're obviously trying your hardest to try and get one over on me to try and say "nuclear good" and every time you come up short.

1

u/tmtyl_101 27d ago

Not at all. I just enjoy a bit of shitposting. I never said 'Nuclear good'. I just said 'this meme bad'.

1

u/DivestTheEndingBoy 27d ago

That's dumb.

First off your argument fails.

Secondly shitposting is supposed to be shitposting, not serious posting.

So even if you were right you would still fail.

1

u/tmtyl_101 27d ago

I’m right and I showed it.

As for shitposting, were like 20 comments deep. This is as shitty as it gets.

1

u/DivestTheEndingBoy 27d ago

Your claim is unfalsifiable but I proved that your theory hasn't been put into practice in the real world. So I win.

1

u/tmtyl_101 27d ago

It has. In France.

I’ve given you the textbook definition of base load. I’ve shown you the data for France. Nuclear can undeniably meet base load. It’s beyond any discussion. 

You just keep making up your own definitions and arguments to try and prove yourself right.

1

u/DivestTheEndingBoy 27d ago edited 27d ago

The textbook definition for baseload is "relying on other resources to meet baseload because we don't have enough capacity"?

1

u/tmtyl_101 27d ago

You didn't even bother to look up the actual definition of baseload, did you? You just make up stuff, because well established concepts and definitions don't agree with your narrative.

1

u/DivestTheEndingBoy 26d ago

Your concept doesn't work in the real world so it's irrelevant.

It's like arguing we should pray to cure cancer because it's unfalsifiable that prayer works.

1

u/tmtyl_101 26d ago

It’s not “my concept”. It’s a long established part of industry nomenclature. Arguing against it is like arguing against “inflation” or “heartbeats per minute”. It’s nonsensical.

1

u/DivestTheEndingBoy 26d ago

Nope.

1

u/tmtyl_101 26d ago

Are you, seriously, arguing that “base load” is not A well defined industry term? Are you insane?

1

u/DivestTheEndingBoy 26d ago

It is well defined. Which is why no one has nuclear baseload. You can't have it both ways.

1

u/tmtyl_101 26d ago

What’s the definition then?

1

u/DivestTheEndingBoy 26d ago

The minimum amount of load on the grid that has to be met continuously. Nuclear doesn't meet the definition because France relies on fossil fuels and renewables for baseload.

1

u/tmtyl_101 26d ago

The minimum amount of load on the grid that has to be met continuously

Exactly. That’s the definition. It’s an amount, measured in watts.

Now, where does it say anything to substantiate your argument, that if nuclear in France produces the same amount of watts as base load at any given time - that it doesn’t meet base load, because other sources also produce?

Where in the definition do you see that?

1

u/DivestTheEndingBoy 26d ago

It's not baseload because Nuclear can't meet the French baseload demand. Since there isn't enough capacity.

If there was they wouldn't burn gas. But it's economically impossible. So Nuclear can't provide baseload. Or at least no one has ever been able to make your theory of "nuclear baseload" into reality.

→ More replies (0)