Classic egg and bacon breakfasts, believe it or not, are a much better option.
That really shows how bad those sugar frosted amphetamine bombs* are. A good idea was taken and then ruined by soaking it in sugar. Also it's worth nothing that a classic egg and bacon breakfast is still only really fine if you have a classic farmhand's expenditure of energy in the morning. With the right lifestyle it may well be perfect, but with a more sedentary lifestyle oats with a bit of milk and sultanas (or the many other alternatives to the sugar frosted amphetamine bombs pushed as breakfast foods). Also "low fat" is relative since many who historically had the high fat breakfasts didn't have as many high fat and high sugar lunches and dinners as is common now. People used to eat a lot of vegetables/potatoes/bread/etc with their fried meat when meat was relatively expensive.
* Bill Watterson of "Calvin and Hobbes" fame nailed the description of some "breakfast cereals".
Unlike you. Mr change the laws of physics just like code in software, I do.
you'd have know that even nuclear is used for load follow in France
It's starting to look as if you need to look up the definition of load following. Clue #1 it is not about running units at full capacity. It's about running a unit at less than full capacity and it dramatically reduces life of anything where you have to frequently vary temperature to do it. Bringing full units on or off line is not load following.
I gave the reasons why it is very rarely done since you know far too little about the topic to know yourself and apparently no motivation to spend a few minutes curing that fault. Most people would find out a little more detail before shouting from the rooftops but it appears that you are not ashamed of your ignorance and are happy to put on a show.
Your statements are very poorly informed. If you are going to spend the billions to scalle nukes to give you the best value of $/GW then you provide the base load as long as possible and make everything else pick up the scraps.
I suggest you learn at least the first two minute of nukes 101 if you are are going to advocate them for those situations where they do make sense. If you have a nuke plant you want the grid to buy as much power as you can provide instead of having to ramp production down and have all that fuel running down in hours without electricity production to show for it. It's not like coal which will burn just as well if it sits on a heap for a decade.
Yes, it's about denial of the obvious via an edge case that reduces the magnitude but does not refute the argument (forests act as carbon sinks) at all. It's also a bit of goalpost shift because nobody was suggesting 100% of the carbon in a tree ends up in the ground.
So merely a deliberate distraction that is worth contempt. Lukewarm misdirection to try to get suckers to believe an outright lie. Did they suck you in or is your politics telling you to spread the lie? Either way, it's best you see it as it is - either so you can defend the 6000 year old earth idea where God set everything up and left, so that you can be a useful idiot for those that want to push that view or so that you can see how you are being manipulated.
So have you been tricked or are you one of the ones doing the manipulation with your eyes open?
Note the text from you I quoted? Funny how you invoke "the real world" while in denial of physics and an example to illustrate a simple aspect of it to the slow. This thread truly does illustrate the difference between someone in software who calls himself an engineer and the real thing that has to consider "the real world". In this place you repeatedly deny reality for the sake of sticking to a political line.
Your self proclImed experience doesn't align with the real world where coal plants have been used as load follow in many places. Rant on,....everyone has begun ignoring you anyhow.
You mean the post where I gave an example of load following and why it is avoided? You really seem intent on proving that you are a complete waste of space.
You are holding a nation with the population of a small city, but with less infrastructure, up to a measure that a small city cannot match either. Why?
Personally I think using a single number alone is flawed and that was probably part of the reasoning behind the Gross National Happiness measure in addition to other things.
Do you think coal was placed into an unchanging earth 6000 years ago before some puny God retired or do you think the earth is a changing thing with ongoing processes such as buried vegetation becoming coal?
Google did better because it used LINKS to help determine ranking
There's a thing called the science citation index that sorts papers that are referenced more to a higher score than those that are not referenced much, and it's a good way to find those papers on a topic that others have found most useful. Google saw it worked and applied a similar method using links (as the above poster wrote). That method brought human judgment that had already been applied into the mix and enabled them to index far more rapidly than AltaVista with better results than AltaVista's simple keyword searches. It was more likely to lead people to a key site that many used instead of an abandoned fan site. That's the main difference.
I worked in thermal power stations and pumped hydro not windmills, or, as you seem to think Moorlock Magic. I'm sorry, but your comment above about just changing the laws of physics, surely nothing hard about that, really is filed under the "this person appears to only be of value to society as protein" level of stupidity. I suggest working on that. Associating with reality denying politics has got you making as little sense as a Senator's pet catamite.
Then answer this - how is compiling a "how to vote card" and asking people to use that instead of their own judgement not politics? You've had nothing other than games, misdirection and insults - but somehow insults are only fair if you use them.
Oh yes, those magic Moorlocks will fix everything for the useless Eloi will they? Yes - your above comment IS stupid enough to warrant that - reality is a bitch and often gets in the way when you want magic instead. Please let me know when you've found the magic fix for thermal expansion.
You never bothered to say specifically what of what I wrote was a falsehood or why
Do you have such a short memory or an inability to scroll up and see the post of yours that I replied to?
You need to up your game
I am not playing a game here and I am obviously objecting to you doing so. If I'm not scoring points by your silly little scale in your mass debate game why should I care?
It's very amusing to see "cheap, safe" mentioned in association with liquid fluoride, but yes, in terms of $ per GW/h at scale over decades of life it could be correct, and safe if extreme care is taken with very reactive liquid metals. Meanwhile the world has moved on from the early 1950s and you may want to look at what India is doing with the legacy of that Thorium experiment and half a century of other stuff. LFTRs are almost the Tesla broadcast power legend of nukes.
So why isn't it happening
It sort of is only with a far more practical descendant of the idea in India.
The switching station is more relevant than you think because we are now shifting to more small distributed generators such as windmills and PV that are distributing to a small local area. These things are already part of the energy mix instead of "not quite ready". Of course a strawman of 100% wind or 100% PV is just as silly as a strawman of 100% nuclear or 100% coal. Until there is a cheap 1MW nuke there is a place for windmills, PV or gas turbines since demand is not a square wave with 500MW steps.
Ironically there are compressed air energy storage systems for wind already - at least one uses an old salt mine instead of building storage tanks and there's the offshore idea of having underwater bags of air instead of building storage tanks. You want higher pressure air - change the depth of the bags in the design.
There's one country where by law each windmill needs a certain amount of local investment. The landowners adjacent to the property with the windmill also get a cut of the revenue. The idea is that if money is going into the area nearest to the windmill the NIMBY factor almost vanishes.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point.
Your taxes are paying for that "hardball" which makes it difficult for the private sector to keep up in the arms race. It is David vs Goliath.
That really shows how bad those sugar frosted amphetamine bombs* are. A good idea was taken and then ruined by soaking it in sugar. Also it's worth nothing that a classic egg and bacon breakfast is still only really fine if you have a classic farmhand's expenditure of energy in the morning. With the right lifestyle it may well be perfect, but with a more sedentary lifestyle oats with a bit of milk and sultanas (or the many other alternatives to the sugar frosted amphetamine bombs pushed as breakfast foods).
Also "low fat" is relative since many who historically had the high fat breakfasts didn't have as many high fat and high sugar lunches and dinners as is common now. People used to eat a lot of vegetables/potatoes/bread/etc with their fried meat when meat was relatively expensive.
* Bill Watterson of "Calvin and Hobbes" fame nailed the description of some "breakfast cereals".
No.
Unlike you. Mr change the laws of physics just like code in software, I do.
It's starting to look as if you need to look up the definition of load following. Clue #1 it is not about running units at full capacity. It's about running a unit at less than full capacity and it dramatically reduces life of anything where you have to frequently vary temperature to do it. Bringing full units on or off line is not load following.
I gave the reasons why it is very rarely done since you know far too little about the topic to know yourself and apparently no motivation to spend a few minutes curing that fault. Most people would find out a little more detail before shouting from the rooftops but it appears that you are not ashamed of your ignorance and are happy to put on a show.
Your statements are very poorly informed. If you are going to spend the billions to scalle nukes to give you the best value of $/GW then you provide the base load as long as possible and make everything else pick up the scraps.
I suggest you learn at least the first two minute of nukes 101 if you are are going to advocate them for those situations where they do make sense. If you have a nuke plant you want the grid to buy as much power as you can provide instead of having to ramp production down and have all that fuel running down in hours without electricity production to show for it. It's not like coal which will burn just as well if it sits on a heap for a decade.
Yes, it's about denial of the obvious via an edge case that reduces the magnitude but does not refute the argument (forests act as carbon sinks) at all.
It's also a bit of goalpost shift because nobody was suggesting 100% of the carbon in a tree ends up in the ground.
So merely a deliberate distraction that is worth contempt. Lukewarm misdirection to try to get suckers to believe an outright lie.
Did they suck you in or is your politics telling you to spread the lie?
Either way, it's best you see it as it is - either so you can defend the 6000 year old earth idea where God set everything up and left, so that you can be a useful idiot for those that want to push that view or so that you can see how you are being manipulated.
So have you been tricked or are you one of the ones doing the manipulation with your eyes open?
Note the text from you I quoted? Funny how you invoke "the real world" while in denial of physics and an example to illustrate a simple aspect of it to the slow.
This thread truly does illustrate the difference between someone in software who calls himself an engineer and the real thing that has to consider "the real world". In this place you repeatedly deny reality for the sake of sticking to a political line.
Your statement of it just being a design issue?
The real world is not software.
Your self proclImed experience doesn't align with the real world where coal plants have been used as load follow in many places. Rant on,....everyone has begun ignoring you anyhow.
You mean the post where I gave an example of load following and why it is avoided?
You really seem intent on proving that you are a complete waste of space.
You are holding a nation with the population of a small city, but with less infrastructure, up to a measure that a small city cannot match either.
Why?
Personally I think using a single number alone is flawed and that was probably part of the reasoning behind the Gross National Happiness measure in addition to other things.
Do you think coal was placed into an unchanging earth 6000 years ago before some puny God retired or do you think the earth is a changing thing with ongoing processes such as buried vegetation becoming coal?
There's a thing called the science citation index that sorts papers that are referenced more to a higher score than those that are not referenced much, and it's a good way to find those papers on a topic that others have found most useful.
Google saw it worked and applied a similar method using links (as the above poster wrote). That method brought human judgment that had already been applied into the mix and enabled them to index far more rapidly than AltaVista with better results than AltaVista's simple keyword searches. It was more likely to lead people to a key site that many used instead of an abandoned fan site.
That's the main difference.
I worked in thermal power stations and pumped hydro not windmills, or, as you seem to think Moorlock Magic.
I'm sorry, but your comment above about just changing the laws of physics, surely nothing hard about that, really is filed under the "this person appears to only be of value to society as protein" level of stupidity. I suggest working on that. Associating with reality denying politics has got you making as little sense as a Senator's pet catamite.
I think i've gotten it a bit mixed up with clementine (mercury cooled) and some of the russian lead cooled reactors.
Then answer this - how is compiling a "how to vote card" and asking people to use that instead of their own judgement not politics?
You've had nothing other than games, misdirection and insults - but somehow insults are only fair if you use them.
Oh yes, those magic Moorlocks will fix everything for the useless Eloi will they?
Yes - your above comment IS stupid enough to warrant that - reality is a bitch and often gets in the way when you want magic instead.
Please let me know when you've found the magic fix for thermal expansion.
Look up HF to get some ideas about reactive things that contain fluoride.
There was an experimental reactor along those lines.
Do you have such a short memory or an inability to scroll up and see the post of yours that I replied to?
I am not playing a game here and I am obviously objecting to you doing so. If I'm not scoring points by your silly little scale in your mass debate game why should I care?
It sort of is only with a far more practical descendant of the idea in India.
Grids are the size of continents. Take a look at the weather map tonight and see if there is no wind at all on your continent.
The switching station is more relevant than you think because we are now shifting to more small distributed generators such as windmills and PV that are distributing to a small local area.
These things are already part of the energy mix instead of "not quite ready". Of course a strawman of 100% wind or 100% PV is just as silly as a strawman of 100% nuclear or 100% coal. Until there is a cheap 1MW nuke there is a place for windmills, PV or gas turbines since demand is not a square wave with 500MW steps.
Ironically there are compressed air energy storage systems for wind already - at least one uses an old salt mine instead of building storage tanks and there's the offshore idea of having underwater bags of air instead of building storage tanks. You want higher pressure air - change the depth of the bags in the design.
There's one country where by law each windmill needs a certain amount of local investment. The landowners adjacent to the property with the windmill also get a cut of the revenue. The idea is that if money is going into the area nearest to the windmill the NIMBY factor almost vanishes.