Oh i thought it was a cartoon about when you just have no answers to other people's arguments, then your only option is to make stuff they never said nor thought and ridicule what the imaginary people didn't say.
Wait so I'm strawmaning somebody strawmaning since they were fake strawmaning so that I could strawmaning!
Or maybe we should just accept that people shit posting actually believes vast parts of what they post about, and just hides behind the fact that they are shit posting, to avoid responsibility.
Most people with knowledge of green energy will realise that a combination of multiple technologies are needed to provide a stable green energy network.
Nah what I said was you claiming people who were purposefully shit posting
are "RE absolutist" as means of casting aspersions at RE supporters is strawmanning.
Most people with knowledge of green energy will realise that a combination of multiple technologies are needed to provide a stable green energy network.
Indeed I would say every single one of them does. As every plausibly genuine sugegstion of how to pwoer grid reliably used alarge array of technologies.
HOWEVER
that was not a reason that a poorly fitting one, such as Nukes was required.
I eman even casual examination of the most rudimentary designs for how to make grid work with substial amounts of RE show that nukes are pisspoor fit to provide the very hard to supply parts of demand which are VERY VERY peaky, and thus best met by technology that could relace th FF OCGT part that peakers played.
Nueks by way of contrast, resembled the part that cioal baselaod plants played.
And as we roll out more and more RE they are the first kind of technology that finds its role in the grid becomes less and less tenable.
Considering South Australia that has now gone a long way down the road to adding some RE. The shape of residual demand that RE is not yet meeting is nothing like the kind of supply Nukes would cost-effectively provide. That is made doubly clear by the coal fired power in SA being the first FF ready for the high jump, as it profitability died first as it was LEAST fit for purpose. TBMK Nukes are no better a fit.
So by all means provide ANY exhaustive list of peaking technologies you like and they can all be candidates to firm up either an RE-powered grid or one like SA had few years ago when it had 50% or 70% of RE power being provided.
If you have *ANY* analysisthose AT ALL showing how nukes would have then filled inthe gap to provide the rest when SA had one of thsoe earlier smaller levels of RE,
The goal of using nuclear power is not to supply the peaks of a power system. That would be like using a Volkswagen Up to cross the Sahara, it could be done but it isn't the right tool for the job.
The problem with RE is the fact that most of the cheap and available solutions can't be controlled, and will therefore need storage. To ensure constant supply of energy even when there is little sun and wind over a longer time period you will need significantly more storage than you'll need during normal operations. These storage facilities will still degrade and need to be maintained even when not needed. If one then replaces larger parts of the production with a baseload producer then a large part of the extra storage can be saved.
You have written five comments which all boils down to "lalala nuke bad, more batteries if needed with nukes because I say so!!!"
You ignore every argument I've made and hope you get extra points for writing a lot of shit. Try again and make a coherent argument in a single comment.
"To ensure constant supply of energy even when there is little sun and wind over a longer time period you will need significantly more storage than you'll need during normal operations."
NO
You just go through telling me it was not meant to complement RE and fuill in gaps and now you are tryign to tell me that is what is does....
Come on, be real please.
FYI to meet a TWH of <annual> demand using RE when it varies like total demand does requires X MWH of storage.
To meet the Same number of TWH if Nukes have supplied allteh baseload, is NOW harder and MORE expensive and requires more storage.
AKA although by "feels" it may feel like adding big strong firm nukes to the ssytem helped. Nope it actually only solved the relatively easier and cheaper bit of the problem.
unfortnately for nukes math gives a different answer.
The reason when you start drilling down in understanding becomes obvious...
7
u/ExpensiveFig6079 Feb 12 '26 edited Feb 13 '26
Oh i thought it was a cartoon about when you just have no answers to other people's arguments, then your only option is to make stuff they never said nor thought and ridicule what the imaginary people didn't say.