On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after > > > all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts. > > > > Actually, it is 19% and declining. > > 19% vs what I said, 20%.You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.> What a nit to pick, stupid lib.What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.> It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.How?> That's why there are 50 nuclear plants under construction around the world, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use Google yet?You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you demonstrably can't use google, you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too expensive to ever make money.> > Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly. Solar cells halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economically attractive. > > > > If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price will almost certainly halve again, and make them even more economically attractive. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png > > > > The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican Party when they funded the Tea Party movement, > > Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or Tom Steyer using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party.Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane make. The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got interested, and James Arthur posted here about being pestered by them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the American legal system in a good light). -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Texas power prices briefly soar to $9,000/MWh as heat wave bakes state
Started by ●August 15, 2019
Reply by ●August 18, 20192019-08-18
Reply by ●August 19, 20192019-08-19
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:> > BS. If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather > calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out > on nuclear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after > all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons. They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle. So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total energy production is at face value fallacious. We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity. I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very expensive. So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve the carbon problem with it. I suppose we could connect massive amounts of energy storage and add even further to the already high cost of nuclear. -- Rick C. --+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging --+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●August 19, 20192019-08-19
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote: > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after > > > > all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts. > > > > > > Actually, it is 19% and declining. > > > > 19% vs what I said, 20%. > > You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly. > > > What a nit to pick, stupid lib. > > What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit. > > > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way. > > How?Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.> > > That's why there are 50 nuclear plants under construction around the world, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use Google yet? > > You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you demonstrably can't use google,ROFL Typical for a dishonest, lying lib. Project on to others what you yourself are actually doing. It's clear that you are the fool who either won't use Google or is just lying and trolling again. you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too expensive to ever make money.> > > > Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly. Solar cells halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economically attractive. > > > > > > If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price will almost certainly halve again, and make them even more economically attractive. > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png > > > > > > The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican Party when they funded the Tea Party movement, > > > > Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or Tom Steyer using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party. > > Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane make.That's either because you are lying again or drinking Kool-aid from stupid, totally biased sources. The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got interested, and James Arthur posted here about being pestered by them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the American legal system in a good light).> > -- > Bill Sloman, SydneyKOCH, KOCH, KOCH! But George Soros, Tom Steyer and other ultra libs do the same and no issues there, in fact you deny, deny, deny. Stupid lying lib.
Reply by ●August 19, 20192019-08-19
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:7beef7ea-32ad-4af2-a03d-9db06376ca63@googlegroups.com:> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman > wrote: >> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie >> wrote: >> > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman >> > wrote: >> > >> > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after >> > > > all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. >> > > > Those are t > he facts. >> > > >> > > Actually, it is 19% and declining. >> > >> > 19% vs what I said, 20%. >> >> You left out the bit about declining, and the point that >> renewables were > 8% and rising rapidly. >> >> > What a nit to pick, stupid lib. >> >> What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post >> and picks > the nit. >> >> > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way. >> >> How? > > Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction > around the world. > >> >> > That's why there are 50 nuclear plants under construction >> > around the wo > rld, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use > Google yet? >> >> You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you >> demonstra > bly can't use google, > > > ROFL > > Typical for a dishonest, lying lib. Project on to others what you > yourself are actually doing. It's clear that you are the fool who > either won't use Google or is just lying and trolling again. > > > > > you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is > very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still > being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too > expensive to ever make money. >> >> > > Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly. >> > > Solar cells > halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more > economically attractive. >> > > >> > > If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price >> > > will al > most certainly halve again, and make them even more economically > attractive. >> > > >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Stat >> > > es#/med > ia/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png >> > > >> > > The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican >> > > Party when > they funded the Tea Party movement, >> > >> > Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or >> > Tom Stey > er using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party. >> >> Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane >> make. > > > That's either because you are lying again or drinking Kool-aid > from stupid, totally biased sources. > > > The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got > interested, and James Arthur posted here about being pestered by > them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough > on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the > American legal system in a good light). >> >> -- >> Bill Sloman, Sydney > > KOCH, KOCH, KOCH! But George Soros, Tom Steyer and other ultra > libs do the same and no issues there, in fact you deny, deny, > deny. Stupid lying lib. > >You are both wrong. There are currently 53 reactors under construction and there are 448 operating, in-use nuclear reactor stations. Some have multiple reactor vessels. So there is probably over 500 running right now. Of the 53 under construction, some are developmental/research types. Also there are hundreds more in use in ships satellites and other location. The 448 number is for 'civil' reactors which pump our grids. But there are many more. I could post a link, but you claim to be the google god and everyone else are 'dishonest lying libs'. You are truly as stupid as it gets. Project that, DumbFatFuckTard4.
Reply by ●August 19, 20192019-08-19
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts. > > > > > > > > Actually, it is 19% and declining. > > > > > > 19% vs what I said, 20%. > > > > You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly. > > > > > What a nit to pick, stupid lib. > > > > What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit. > > > > > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way. > > > > How? > > Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.What fifty nuclear plants?> > > That's why there are 50 nuclear plants under construction around the world, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use Google yet? > > > > You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you demonstrably can't use google, > > ROFLAs opposed to logging on and finding a link that listed those fifty stations. That would work better than rolling around on the floor, but while you may have mastered rolling around on the floor, anything more intellectually demanding is inaccessible.> Typical for a dishonest, lying lib. Project on to others what you yourself are actually doing. It's clear that you are the fool who either won't use Google or is just lying and trolling again.Trader4 hasn't noticed that I googled the link the made the point that his figure for nuclear component in US power generation was incomplete and misleading. He hasn't even bothered to snip it out of his response. He doesn't even try to disguise his stupidity, probably because he doesn't realise quite how obvious it is.> you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too expensive to ever make money. > > > > > > Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly. Solar cells halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economically attractive. > > > > > > > > If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price will almost certainly halve again, and make them even more economically attractive. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png > > > > > > > > The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican Party when they funded the Tea Party movement, > > > > > > Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or Tom Steyer using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party. > > > > Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane make. > > That's either because you are lying again or drinking Kool-aid from stupid, totally biased sources.I leave the stupid, totally biassed, sources to you. You recycle them with gullible enthusiasm.> The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got interested, and James Arthur posted here about being pestered by them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the American legal system in a good light). > > KOCH, KOCH, KOCH! But George Soros, Tom Steyer and other ultra libs do the same and no issues there, in fact you deny, deny, deny.You may think they do, but you believe any numbers of things that don't happen to be true.> Stupid lying lib.A little wishful thinking there. Trader4 isn't up to any kind of more demanding thinking - if he doesn't share an opinion he wants it to be a lie. Sadly, what he wants and what the real world will deliver aren't closely connected. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●August 19, 20192019-08-19
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 7:22:38 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:> Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in > news:7beef7ea-32ad-4af2-a03d-9db06376ca63@googlegroups.com: > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman > > wrote: > >> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie > >> wrote: > >> > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after > >> > > > all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. > >> > > > Those are t > > he facts. > >> > > > >> > > Actually, it is 19% and declining. > >> > > >> > 19% vs what I said, 20%. > >> > >> You left out the bit about declining, and the point that > >> renewables were > > 8% and rising rapidly. > >> > >> > What a nit to pick, stupid lib. > >> > >> What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post > >> and picks > > the nit. > >> > >> > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way. > >> > >> How? > > > > Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction > > around the world. > > > >> > >> > That's why there are 50 nuclear plants under construction > >> > around the wo > > rld, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use > > Google yet? > >> > >> You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you > >> demonstra > > bly can't use google, > > > > > > ROFL > > > > Typical for a dishonest, lying lib. Project on to others what you > > yourself are actually doing. It's clear that you are the fool who > > either won't use Google or is just lying and trolling again. > > > > > > > > > > you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is > > very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still > > being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too > > expensive to ever make money. > >> > >> > > Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly. > >> > > Solar cells > > halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more > > economically attractive. > >> > > > >> > > If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price > >> > > will al > > most certainly halve again, and make them even more economically > > attractive. > >> > > > >> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Stat > >> > > es#/med > > ia/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png > >> > > > >> > > The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican > >> > > Party when > > they funded the Tea Party movement, > >> > > >> > Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or > >> > Tom Stey > > er using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party. > >> > >> Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane > >> make. > > > > > > That's either because you are lying again or drinking Kool-aid > > from stupid, totally biased sources. > > > > > > The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got > > interested, and James Arthur posted here about being pestered by > > them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough > > on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the > > American legal system in a good light). > >> > >> -- > >> Bill Sloman, Sydney > > > > KOCH, KOCH, KOCH! But George Soros, Tom Steyer and other ultra > > libs do the same and no issues there, in fact you deny, deny, > > deny. Stupid lying lib. > > > > > > You are both wrong. There are currently 53 reactors under > construction and there are 448 operating, in-use nuclear reactor > stations.ROFL. The issue was whether nuclear power is economically viable. I said there were 50 plants under construction right now. Others, like your butt buddy Bill, said that's not true, there are few or none, nuclear isn't viable. So, the actual number is 53. Well, EXCUSE ME! ROFL But thanks for pointing out the truth, that Bill is full of BS, as usual.> > Some have multiple reactor vessels. > > So there is probably over 500 running right now. > > Of the 53 under construction, some are developmental/research > types. > > Also there are hundreds more in use in ships satellites and other > location. The 448 number is for 'civil' reactors which pump our > grids. But there are many more. > > I could post a link, but you claim to be the google god and > everyone else are 'dishonest lying libs'. > > You are truly as stupid as it gets. Project that, > DumbFatFuckTard4.And then, despite the fact that I was right, you proceed to attack me. How sad and typical.
Reply by ●August 19, 20192019-08-19
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote: > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts. > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it is 19% and declining. > > > > > > > > 19% vs what I said, 20%. > > > > > > You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly. > > > > > > > What a nit to pick, stupid lib. > > > > > > What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit. > > > > > > > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way. > > > > > > How? > > > > Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world. > > What fifty nuclear plants? >Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them. Stupid lib. Just like all the libs, they want someone else to do the work for them, they are helpless. Well, DL just did the work for you! Next!
Reply by ●August 19, 20192019-08-19
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote: > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote: > > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it is 19% and declining. > > > > > > > > > > 19% vs what I said, 20%. > > > > > > > > You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly. > > > > > > > > > What a nit to pick, stupid lib. > > > > > > > > What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit. > > > > > > > > > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way. > > > > > > > > How? > > > > > > Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world. > > > > What fifty nuclear plants? > > > Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them.He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else. You are relying on sloppy second hand information that has gotten even less reliable once it's passed through your feeble excuse for comprehension. I'm not going to take you seriously enough even to look.> Stupid lib. Just like all the libs, they want someone else to do > the work for them, they are helpless. Well, DL just did the work > for you!He found reactors under construction, not power reactors under construction. It isn't the job you claim to have done, and clearly didn't. Make all the fuss you like. You are a dim-wit, and advertise your defects every time I give you the opportunity to claim you know what you are talking about. You are slow at waking up to what an ass you make of yourself, but even with somebody as dim as you, the penny eventually drops.> Next!Trader4 needs another pratfall. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●August 19, 20192019-08-19
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:01:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote: > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote: > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote: > > > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Actually, it is 19% and declining. > > > > > > > > > > > > 19% vs what I said, 20%. > > > > > > > > > > You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly. > > > > > > > > > > > What a nit to pick, stupid lib. > > > > > > > > > > What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit. > > > > > > > > > > > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way. > > > > > > > > > > How? > > > > > > > > Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world. > > > > > > What fifty nuclear plants? > > > > > > Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them. > > He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else.ROFL! I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him to say I'm wrong, because I said 50? ROFL. You're amazing. Fifty or fifty three, who the hell cares, except a troll like you. My point is 100% correct. And DL didn't say "quite a few' were research, he said some. So, let's recap your lying lib methods I said there were 50 nuclear power reactors currently under construction and 50 more in the planning stages. DL claims that I'm wrong, it's actually 53, as if that nit matters. Now, IDK what he added beyond the fifty POWER reactors, neither do you and I don't care. But now you take his increased number which may include three research reactors on top of the 50 POWER reactors, and try to use that to claim that I'm wrong/ Your lying, shystering lib methods never stop. One more time. There are 50 nuclear power plants under construction worldwide, with 50 more in the planning stages showing that contrary to your stupid claims, they are being built. All your BS can't change that.> > You are relying on sloppy second hand information that has gotten even less reliable once it's passed through your feeble excuse for comprehension.ROFL. You're the dope that can't use Google and asks others to do it for you. And then talk about information sources, you just used data in a post from DL as a source! And even that wasn't good enough, you had to lie about what he posted on top of that.> > I'm not going to take you seriously enough even to look.Which explains how stupid libs like you stay so ignorant. You've made about 5 posts on this now, but you won't spend one minute to find out the truth. Thanks for representing for the libs!
Reply by ●August 19, 20192019-08-19
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote: > > > > BS. If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather > > calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out > > on nuclear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after > > all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts. > > Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons.That's not true and MIT says so. In fact they say they are good for being able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind. You know, like when clouds show up? http://news.mit.edu/2018/flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-more-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid-0425 Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service.> They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle.Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base load. What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like when a cloud shows up.> > > So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total energy production is at face value fallacious.BS. MIT says so. And even if it were true, we could use nuclear for a lot more than 20%. And shouldn't we? The climate change folks say the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does that in a big and real way. After two decades of talk and actually putting up a lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power comes from solar. We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity. I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very expensive.> > So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve the carbon problem with it.Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far more serious limitations. And at 1.6% of power from solar after all the harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher electric bills, it sure hasn't done much.
