shogun32
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2019
- Threads
- 89
- Messages
- 14,811
- Reaction score
- 12,350
- Location
- Northern VA
- First Name
- Matt
- Vehicle(s)
- '19 GT/PP, '23 GB Mach1, '12 Audi S5 (v8+6mt)
- Vehicle Showcase
- 2
EVERY solar/wind installation has to be backed up with RELIABLE power source. So the cost/MW MUST include the natgas power supply you have to keep running, even if at idle. X+Y > Y every day and every time. Greenies can't do basic 1st grade math.but Solar/Wind/Nuclear (throwing nuclear in there) can be baseload in the near future (Europe's already done it in many places and has less favorable solar characteristics) if we follow the cheapest way to produce energy
Nuclear (Thorium) is the obvious answer to power to the people, but GE esp and FR are decommissioning their nuc power plants left right and center. And now they're stuck with nat gas fueled by their friendly Ruskie neighbors. Talk about the height of stupidity and preening-to-be-green.
When wind/solar goes to zero at any time, you have to have enough slack in the system with INSTANT response or you suffer brown/black outs. Now maybe society at large voted and agreed to this tradeoff. But did they? Or were they LIED to?
Just because "105% on the reactor possible, not recommended." "Go to 105% power" doesn't mean it'll end well.
Sponsored
Last edited: