Brangelina thread

By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.

Comments

  1. #1 BBD
    March 19, 2013

    # 98 last page

    I think you are a lying sack of shit, Bradley! All this guff about codes etc…

    Link to that comment please.

    *I am also waiting* for the link to TL notifying you that you were in moderation. I would like to see that too, please.

    Trust but verify and all that!

    ;-)

  2. #2 Wow
    March 19, 2013

    ““Is romance in the air?” Er, doesn’t she, like, have a husband?”

    So you’re saying you’re so repellent a person that you’d never be able to get married?

    Well, I concur.

  3. #3 Brad Keyes
    March 19, 2013

    BBD:
    I think you are a lying sack of shit, Bradley! All this guff about codes etc…

    Link to that comment please.
    Huh? Are you talking about Mann’s code? Which comment about it?

    *I am also waiting* for the link to TL notifying you that you were in moderation. I would like to see that too, please.

    I’m not sure you quite grasp how Доверяй, но проверяй works, but it’s an imperative and it’s talking to you: you have to trust me, you have to verify that I’m telling the truth, you do all the work.

    Nevertheless, since not everyone speaks Russian as well as me, I’ll do the work of verification for you just this once—here is the post:
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/february-2013-open-thread/comment-page-9/#comment-152094

    Note that the “repeated violations of the rules” are fictional. No “rule”, let alone “rules,” stated that I wasn’t allowed to terrify the minor leagues by coming and going from my eponymous thread as I pleased. I’d hardly call a blog post (the OP of this thread) a rule, let alone “the rules.” Hey, I’m a busy guy, I don’t have time to read everything Tim posts, and I’ve often dived into the comments thread on a blog without reading the OP. What other “rules” have I missed by not reading his entire back-catalog of blog posts, I wonder?

  4. #4 Brad Keyes
    March 19, 2013

    Wow

    ““Is romance in the air?” Er, doesn’t she, like, have a husband?”

    So you’re saying you’re so repellent a person that you’d never be able to get married?

    Well, I concur.

    No, I’m saying nothing of the sort. (Comprehension isn’t your strong suit, is it?)

    But you’re saying quite a lot.

    You’re telling us you’re so unethical and dishonest that you’d have no scruples dating a married woman.

    Well, I concur.

  5. #5 Wow
    March 19, 2013

    Dominic:

    You mean you’re not a sock and not BK’s significant other? Then how is it that he knows so much about you? Are you corresponding privately? Is romance in the air?

    Huh? What do I know about her that’s not public knowledge?

    Well, you asserted something that COULD NOT be public knowledge: that chubby had not been sockpuppeting.

    Your memory is failing, old bean. Check yourself in to an OAP home before you start wearing someone else’s underpants on your head and going “Wibble”.

  6. #6 David B. Benson
    March 19, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind — We’ll just disagree then. I can’t argue you out of your current state of misinformed prejudice.

  7. #7 Wow
    March 19, 2013

    Yeah, see, this is a problem, Dave.

    You just said “We’ll just disagree then”, but THEN you go “misinformed prejudice”, indicating that Vince is wrong. Except that negates your “we’ll disagree then” statement.

    The point is you’re a foolish idiot who has swallowed the nuclear load and gobbled it down looking for more.

    You are absolutely and hugely idiotically wrong.

    USA alone: $7.1Bn subsidies.

    Its CO2 output per MWh is higher than solar or wind.

    It is taking decades to complete a single prototype and it’s now four times the original cost and has been a shambles from the get-go.

    We have neither the time, the money, the ability or the need for nuclear power.

    It is hugely expensive and completely inappropriate to this current situation since it DEMANDS an entirely stable situation for well over 40 years.

    WE DON’T HAVE THAT LUXURY.

    Sea level rise over the next 40 years depends on how quickly the greenland ice sheets and WAIS break off. All we KNOW is that our models have underestimated the effect.

    Nuclear is just another way of spending time and money we don’t have on people who are hugely rich and connected who wish to remain on top, and to hell with the rest of the planet.

  8. #8 Vince Whirlwind
    March 20, 2013

    I don’t have any misinformed prejudice: the nuke history has a long history of externalising huge costs that have to be shouldered by the taxpayer. It also has a long history of peddling misinformation, being secretive, and cutting corners on safety.
    On paper, nukes are a non-option – the only way to make it look like a viable option is to do what the UK government did in its 2006 energy report, which is to say, to break the law and tell deliberate lies.

    Additional costs we haven’t even begun to calculate include, for example, the cost of the UK’s 34-years’-worth of dumping of radioactive waste in leaky 44-gallon drums into the North Sea. 74,000 tons-worth that we know about.

    France and Belgium combines have dropped over 100,000 drums of nuclear waste into the North Atlantic, and the USA has dumped a similar amoutn in the sea. We won’t even talk about the vast amount of radioactive waste the Russians have strewn about the Arctic and the Pacific, including old reactors and loose fuel rods.

    What a filthy, dishonest business you support – Where does wind power ask for this kind of subsidy?

  9. #9 Chameleon
    March 20, 2013

    EXCUSE ME VINCE???????
    “Oops! Slipped out of character there a bit….since when does a half-witted country-bumpkin unable to form paragraphs use a word like “languish” when “gets stuck” and “got blocked” are available?”
    How completely rude, obnoxious and entirely unpleasant and distasteful of you Vince!
    The fact that I live and work in Rural Australia has absolutely nothing to do with my ability to use the English language and/or my education level.
    I used ‘languish’ as it was the appropriate word. (IMHO). The moderator/s at this site appear to be somewhat lazy and usually only release moderated comments once per day.
    Therefore, despite the fact that there is no sock, my comments ‘languish’.
    Languish: v; 1) to droop or fade. 2) To lose activity or vigour.
    So even though I could have used ‘blocked’ or ‘gets stuck’ or indeed a plethora of other availble words I chose LANGUISH!
    :-) :-) :-) :-)
    I am guffawing at your pathetic attempt to stereotype people and then sneer at them down your highly supercilious nose based on NO EVIDENCE other than your muddled and apparently paranoid imagination.
    BUT?
    If I remember correctly, you were the one who coined the laughable term ‘intellect envy’ and you were also the one who loudly claimed that MBH98 was CONFIRMED by BEST.
    Your word usage has been far more questionable than my usage of LANGUISH.

  10. #10 David B. Benson
    March 20, 2013

    Wow & Vince Whirlwind — I will not just take your word for your assertions; links to authoritative sources are required. I currently doubt that such exist.

    In particular, do not confuse civilian nuclear power generation (regulated everywhere) with military bomb making (unregulated everywhere I know about). The latter certainly was done quite poorly, at least in the USA.

  11. #11 David B. Benson
    March 20, 2013

    Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/WNA/Publications/WNA-Reports/Lifecycle-GHG-Emissions-of-Electricity-Generation/#.UUkttGtlCgo
    “Greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power plants are among the lowest of any electricity generation method and on a lifecycle basis are comparable to wind, hydro-electricity and biomass.”

  12. #12 Brad Keyes
    March 20, 2013

    bill:

    What, will none of our regular ‘skeptics’ explain McI’s point re Marcott?

    Stop shuffling and gazing at your shoes, people!

    Otherwise we really might be forced to conclude that either A: he doesn’t really have one, or B: you’re incapable of explaining it anyway, and generally have very little idea of the actual meaning of any of the consoling claims you routinely regurgitate.

    C: I haven’t been to ClimateAudit in weeks. Having too much fun here in the believosphere. I’ve dropped in at WUWT once or twice, where Marcott et al. is mentioned but not explored in enabling detail; apparently CA has busted yet another hockey stick, but I don’t know how or even whether this really occurred so I’m not inclined to crow about it.

  13. #13 Vince Whirlwind
    March 20, 2013

    In particular, do not confuse civilian nuclear power generation (regulated everywhere) with military bomb making

    Why would you not confuse them?

    The former only exists as a result of, or to serve, the latter.

    You really have swallowed some nasty PR, David.

    Are any in such a state of denial about this that we need to dig out the various government policy statements that make this deliberate link clear?

  14. #14 Vince Whirlwind
    March 20, 2013

    “Greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear power plants are among the lowest of any electricity generation method and on a lifecycle basis are comparable to wind, hydro-electricity and biomass.”

    …says the “World Nuclear Association”.

    How about we get some genuine analysis instead of nuke-spruikers’ PR?

    What do they seem to be saying here:

    Accounting for emissions from all phases of the project (construction, operation, and decommissioning)

    ?

    Nuclear fuel cycle not included?

    Could this be the approach to “information” that got the nuke lobby found guilty of unlawful activity by the UK High Court in 2007?

  15. #15 chameleon
    March 20, 2013

    David B,
    I agree that some sensible planning needs to be done re future energy needs.
    When or, perhaps IF the moderator/s at this site stop holding back my comments FOR NO REASON (!!!) I hope that you will still be around to discuss this further.
    If not, perhaps you could suggest another site where these issues are discussed?

  16. #16 Vince Whirlwind
    March 20, 2013

    Oh, what a hoot your document is:

    Nuclear power plants achieve a high degree of safety through the defence-in-depth approach where,
    among other things, the plant is designed with multiple physical barriers. These additional physical
    barriers are generally not built within other electrical generating systems, and as such, the greenhouse
    gas emissions attributed to construction of a nuclear power plant are higher than emissions resulting from
    construction of other generation methods.

    Gee, I’m sure carbon emissions is high on the list of concerns among the millions of people affected by the forced evacuation of hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of land caused by the nuke industry’s “high degree of safety”….

  17. #17 Vince Whirlwind
    March 20, 2013

    For example, some studies included waste
    management and treatment in the scope, while some excluded waste.

    Yep. Just leave it out.

    Who needs a complete picture anyway?

  18. #18 Vince Whirlwind
    March 20, 2013

    That was a sales brochure posing as a meta-study.

    Wottalodacrap, David.

  19. #19 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    “Wow & Vince Whirlwind — I will not just take your word for your assertions; links to authoritative sources are required. I currently doubt that such exist.”

    And you’ll decide if they are authoritative, right?

    What do you want a link for, hmm?

    Okilituke or something like that is currently nearly four times over budget. You can find a link for that yourself. The french one is nearly three times over budget.

    The insurance taken out is limited (I forget the name of the act in the usa that limits it), and the difference underwritten. It’s the same deal for the Japanese one. The insurance is only for minor accidents that happen day-to-day. You can google the information yourself. Pick the authoritative source yourself.

    If we were secure because we’d done something 20 years ago, then i’d be fine with trying the thorium reactor again to see if we can make it work this time, as a test to see if we an replace older designs with a new and now proven (hasn’t been yet) safer design. We don’t really have the money for it, though. But two tests are currently underway, so my wishes don’t seem to matter.

    We have neither the money, time nor ability to make a rapid increase of nuclear. Especially off untested and already expensive and unreliable versions of a reactor that we dropped 50 years ago.

  20. #20 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    Bradley

    Huh? Are you talking about Mann’s code? Which comment about it?

    Evasive little worm!

    I put my real name (cryptically) and email details in a comment—you all could have read it, solved it and been my inbox buddies right now. But by design, the encryption acted as a filter, so that only deniers had the IQ to work it out, and the only email friendship that blossomed from that point on was with the lovely, intelligent, overly-polite, frustratingly-honest, married Chameleon.

    I think you are lying about this because Chameleon is either a sock or your significant other. Defend yourself by linking to the comment in question instead of engaging in childishly transparent evasions.

    “Доверяй, но проверяй”

    Ah, Bradley the google-enabled polymath strikes again! It’s very simple, oh mighty intellect: I don’t trust; you need to verify.

    ***

    It’s amusing to see what I wrote to your alter-ego in the comment immediately before your last hurrah:

    Two years hard work with climate textbooks and you’ll be about up to basic speed. Then, at last, we might start to get somewhere.

    Remember that a hallmark of pathological denial is the extreme reluctance (outright blanket refusal, really) of sufferers to even look at evidence which challenges their hermetic but comforting fantasy state.

    ***

    Your lies are risible, Bradley:

    Note that the “repeated violations of the rules” are fictional. No “rule”, let alone “rules,” stated that I wasn’t allowed to terrify the minor leagues by coming and going from my eponymous thread as I pleased.

    You cannot possibly have missed this.

  21. #21 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    Wow

    You are correct: your wishes do not matter. The needs of the people, and of the environment, are paramount.

  22. #22 Brad Keyes
    March 20, 2013

    Oh. My. God. What have we done to deserve more of 12 Deniers Make One Sou’s trademark blend of humor and searing climate-debate analysis?

    Bill, the crowd see McI has written an article or two or three.

    Well, which is it? One or two or three?

    That is enough to “prove” that climate science is a hoax.

    Riiiight.

    Which NOBODY CLAIMS IT IS.

    Other than that little incomprehension, spot-on as usual, Sou!

  23. #23 Brad Keyes
    March 20, 2013

    “Доверяй, но проверяй”

    Ah, Bradley the google-enabled polymath strikes again!

    Ah, BBD, the guy who presumes his own ignorance of Russian is shared by others, projects again!

    It’s very simple, oh mighty intellect: I don’t trust; you need to verify.

    And I suppose that’s why you wrote:

    Trust but verify and all that!

    ?

    They say that’s the hard bit about being a liar: you have to have a good memory.

    Try to remember your own commenting history next time, BBD.

  24. #24 Brad Keyes
    March 20, 2013

    BBD,

    just to drive home an older point, remember the way Wow’s take on the “reasoning” process drove you to homicidal exasperation on the weekend?

    Remember how Lotharsson once criticised Wow for his sub-high-school comprehension of English and urged him to get help? Remember how Wow accused some other contributor of being mentally ill and Lotharsson pointed out that Wow had it precisely back-to-front?

    You now have direct personal experience of how profoundly retarded Wow is. That experience is shared by your deltoidal coreligionists.

    The question is:

    What makes you think Wow comes across as any less retarded when he’s debating us than he does to you?

    He doesn’t.

    Don’t commit the Gell-Mann fallacy.

    For an up-to-date example, look at comment #2 on this page.

    Look at comment #5 and compare it to the comment Wow is “responding” to, in which I explicitly said:

    Huh? What do I know about her that’s not public knowledge? (Someone had to tell me Chameleon was female, so that should be your tipoff that I didn’t know her socially. Same happened with Sou the first time I called “him” a strawman-erecting hypocritical weaselly bastard.) The only privileged knowledge I’ve ever let slip is that Chameleon didn’t sock-puppet. I know because I asked her.

    See? As Forrest Gump said, stupid is a robust trait. Wow is an embarrassment to your “side.”

  25. #25 bill
    March 20, 2013

    Gee, it’s a pity ‘Chebbie’ couldn’t apply some of that genius to accurately parsing Delingpole’s rantings.

    This is getting to be one of the daftest soap-operas going! The performances are worthy of ‘Twilight’…

  26. #26 Brad Keyes
    March 20, 2013

    bill:

    Gee, it’s a pity ‘Chebbie’ couldn’t apply some of that [blah blah blah]

    Interesting.

    So you think Chameleon sounds like a female (whatever that means) when she writes.

    I’m sure you’re right, bill… but it’s not going to endear you to some of the locals!

  27. #27 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    “The needs of the people, and of the environment, are paramount.”

    You are correct. Which is why nuclear should be off the table.

  28. #28 Brad Keyes
    March 20, 2013

    BBD:

    Further proof of the Gump Conjecture:

    Yeah, see, this is a problem, Dave.

    You just said “We’ll just disagree then”, but THEN you go “misinformed prejudice”, indicating that Vince is wrong. Except that negates your “we’ll disagree then” statement.

    When Wow is “debating” me I tend to suspect he’s on the Heartland payroll.

    With this new data, I’d say he’s just as likely to work for the nuclear lobby.

  29. #29 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    PS Am I not allowed to be one of the people, nuclear-lover, just because I don’t love nuclear without reservation as you and David do?

    Who decided that those who are not for nuclear should be ostracised from society?

  30. #30 Brad Keyes
    March 20, 2013

    That’s not why you’re a pariah, Wow.

  31. #31 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    Wow

    Turn it round. The world does not want to be subjected to the emissions arising from anti-nuclear hysterics pushing nuclear off the table.

    You are still projecting. I do not want to take renewables off the table. I want *both* nuclear and renewables because:

    Nuclear + renewables = *much less* CO2 that just one or other.

    I object to anti-nuclear hysterics because they are a dangerous obstacle to decarbonisation.

    As I have already pointed out, several times.

  32. #32 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Yes, that’s what I did: turn it around. Oddly, though, you think that only works for you.

    “The world does not want to be subjected to the emissions arising from anti-nuclear hysterics pushing nuclear off the table.”

    That’s fine. Renewables are on the table.

    “I want *both* nuclear and renewables”

    Yes, you want nuclear on the table and WILL NOT condone it being removed, no matter how dangerous or counterproductive it is.

    “Nuclear + renewables = *much less* CO2 that just one or other.”

    Incorrect.

    Renewables + Renewables = MUCH LESS CO2 than Nuclear + Renewables.

    And renewables + nuclear = much much more danger than renewables alone.

    And renewables + nuclear = much less renewables.

  33. #33 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    “I object to anti-nuclear hysterics because they are a dangerous obstacle to decarbonisation.”

    1) It isn’t hysteria. It’s merely a lack of fanboi adulation
    2) It isn’t an obstacle to decarbonisation.

  34. #34 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    If you want to say

    100% (Renewables + Nuclear) is easier than 100% Renewables

    you would have to argue how and the weight given in that calculation, but I could at least concede that there may be a case there.

  35. #35 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    @ 25

    Good – that’s all I’ve been arguing from the start. You still don’t understand that I’m not a ‘fan’ of nuclear nor an enemy of renewables. I’m a fan of decarbonisation and an enemy of plans that don’t add up.

    We don’t have to be at war over this. Especially not once you concede that I’m not trying to push renewables off the table. I really do mean renewables + nuclear = optimum decarbonisation trajectory. Renewables only = suboptimal decarbonisation trajectory. Nuclear only = suboptimal decarbonisation trajectory.

  36. #36 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    “@ 25

    Good – that’s all I’ve been arguing from the start. ”

    No, you haven’t. You’ve been arguing this:

    Nuclear + renewables = *much less* CO2 that just one or other.

    Which isn’t the same thing at all.

    Renewables only = suboptimal decarbonisation trajectory.

    Nope, not that either.

    It costs 20Bn to put 2 GW of nuclear power up.

    For the same price we can get 20GW of renewables.

    It takes 15 years to get 2GW of nuclear power up before it generates electricity.

    Renewables can start within weeks of the first connection to the grid and first installed unit.

    Going for nuclear IS the sub-optimal one because we have neither the time nor the money to build and building in haste ensures that the bulding will be shoddy.

    But a shoddy wind turbine may kill a cow.

    A shoddy nuclear power plant does bites Chernobyl.

    Nuclear is the sub-optimal route.

    You have to demonstrate why you insist renewables are sub-optimal.

    So far all you’ve had is the proven falsity that “we can’t do 100% renewables”.

  37. #37 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    “Especially not once you concede that I’m not trying to push renewables off the table.”

    I’m not against you for trying to push renewables off.

    Though that IS the consequence of paying time and money to build nuclear.

    I’m against you pushing nuclear despite it being absolutely the wrong choice at this time in the world we have.

  38. #38 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Note that I said:

    you would have to argue how and the weight given in that calculation

    However, you decided that wasn’t needed.

  39. #39 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    Wow

    If renewables are as marvellous as their more excitable proponents believe, then you must not concern yourself.

    The decarbonisation problem is as good as solved.

    Of course if you are rather badly mistaken, we will need nuclear to make up for broken renewables promises. If you have been paying attention, you will know that this is what James Hansen (and many others) believe makes uncritical acceptance of renewables boosterism so very dangerous.

    While I like and respect you (despite your recently colourful reflections on my character and intellect) I have more time for Hansen’s views than for yours. This should not be a stinging insult (it would not be if someone said it to me!)

    So let’s not go to war over nothing. If you are right, renewables will be a wonderful, ever-growing, ever-giving energy solution. If you are wrong, well, it’s not the end of the world… is it?

  40. #40 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Of course if you are rather badly mistaken, we will need nuclear to make up for broken renewables promises.

    Uh, you’re presuming here that nuclear can be used to “make up for broken renewables promises”.

    What if it can’t?

    Then isn’t spending time and money on it a waste of both?

  41. #41 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    “we will need nuclear to make up for broken renewables promises”

    It cannot.

  42. #42 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    To build a generator scale prototype thorium reactor: a poor use of our money. But if we learn from it, even though it is, as with most nuke power station builds, it’s almost entirely “how not to do it”, there’s at least progress.

    But to pretend that these thorium reactors should be built as a priority? Rubbish. It only demonstrates that we DON’T learn.

    These reactors are 20 years away, even if they work out as the best utopian ideas about them imply. It will be AT LEAST 5 years before either of the prototypes start generating and another 10 years to find out what the hell happens when you try running them (note: the current designs need weapons-grade materials to generate their power because it’s cheaper to produce a design like that. Which is why these designs DO NOT solve any proliferation problems). The designs also aren’t built to allow use of old materials (a different design is needed to do that without the “refuelling” being “gut the whole place and replace the core”).

    They would show what the result of generating power with thorium would do to the reactor. But ONLY if run for several years not as a commercial product, but as a prototype, where the power generated is offsetting the cost, not the reason for running it. Running it as a commercial product is why Chernobyl went bang: the engineers who knew the design and the shortcuts/design “features” were were replaced with cheaper newbies who did not know the system. So an accident started and the normal procedures were ineffective because the design was different in an attempt to make it safer or more productive.

    So it would be 15 years at least, if no more problems occur, before we know what the hell happens with the thorium designs we are implementing. IF they turn out to be workable, the next generation STILL is bespoke, because all we learnt from the current design is what doesn’t work. Not what does when starting again.

    Five years later, IF the utopia pans out, we may know enough to run with the designs.

    But each step of “if” adds another 20 years.

    One “if” wrong and we’re mid 21stC. WAIS and GIS have, unless we’ve decarbonised by 2020 almost completely, are either on the road to recovery by 2100 or we’re SOL.

    In the latter case, there is nowhere we can plant a nuclear power station.

    Nuclear power is only an option AFTER we’ve decarbonised.

    And, to be frank, decarbonisation is nearly possible now if we stop wasting so much damn energy. USA could use 25% of their use, UK (and much of Europe) half.

    If 30% of current need is replaced with renewables in 20 years, along with the cuts from those above the world average TO the world average, we’d be 80+% decarbonised. That’s probably enough to keep under 400ppm, or at least under 450ppm. If that isn’t enough, then we’re boned anyway, all we’ve managed to do is delay the onslaught.

  43. #43 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    Why are you going on about thorium reactors? I’m talking about Gen III – a proven technology.

    Uh, you’re presuming here that nuclear can be used to “make up for broken renewables promises”.

    What if it can’t?

    Of course it can. It is a proven, scalable, dispatchable baseload technology.

    The unproven,non-baseload, non-dispatchable hand-waving stuff is called large-scale renewables. This is what we are taking the big functionality gamble on. Hansen knows this. I know this – indeed most people with some familiarity of the topic know this.

    It cannot.

    We know Gen III works, Wow. You are shouting nonsensical – indeed *falsifiable* – assertions.

  44. #44 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    Eh – ‘some familiarity *with* the topic’

  45. #45 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    I’m talking about Gen III – a proven technology.

    You’d never said what tech you were talking about. AndGen II was a proven technology too. It’s why there are so many out there still being extended in use because it cheaper than building a new one.

    From the wiki:

    Edwin Lyman, a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, has challenged specific cost-saving design choices made for two generation III reactors, both the AP1000 and ESBWR. Lyman, John Ma (a senior structural engineer at the NRC), and Arnold Gundersen (an anti-nuclear consultant) are concerned about what they perceive as weaknesses in the steel containment vessel and the concrete shield building around the AP1000. They say that the AP1000 containment vessel does not have sufficient safety margins in the event of a direct airplane strike.[3][4] Other engineers do not agree with these concerns, and claim the containment building is more than sufficient in safety margins and Factors of safety.

    the USA’s government’s Health and Safety Executive has said its design assessment process will miss its June 2011 deadline.

    More information is required from the reactor vendors in a number of areas: fault studies, fuel design and electrical systems for AP1000; and mechanical engineering, environment and fuel design for the EPR. For both reactors the HSE wants more information on structural integrity as well as higher active waste and used fuel management.

    Oklituko and Flamanville are currently years late and two to three-plus times over budget AND STILL NOT FINISHED.

    EDF require a GURANTEED rate, inflation based, or won’t bother at all. If that reactor were commercially viable, then the wouldn’t be asking for a pre-agreed profit, would they. And still require a cap on liability. Doesn’t bode well for what they assume for safety.

    So it appears that the people doing this don’t think it is commercial.

    And what design was Fukushima? The same as the ones in the USA currently being retrofitted with hardened vents.

    They would require replacing first, wouldn’t they? Or are you going to keep them running?

    And nuclear requires backup. About 10% of the time it’s unavailable due to unforseen outages and there’s a periodical (roughly 18 months) outage for about 50 days for maintenance.

    What do you back it up with?

    More nukes?

    Lastly, France are owning up to the fact that if they had a problem of a similar magnitude to Fukushima, France would no longer exist since it would be bankrupt. Indeed their nuclear power dependence has seen them hit HARD not only because nuclear generation is ineffective in a variable load market, especially in a warming climate. But they are also finding the cost of running these (EdF is subsidised directly by the French taxpayer) is commercial suicide and is bleeding the tax revenues dry.

    They’re skint partly because of nuclear power.

  46. #46 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    We know Gen III works, Wow.

    Who’s this “We”, kimosabe? You don’t, if you think that nuclear power can make up for “broken renewable promises”.

    Which, let us remember, is entirely based on a few assumed IFs that go against renewable generation. Ifs that have no reason to be so.

    Generation capacity is cheaper, quicker to complete and can start generating before more than a small fraction of the site is complete.

    The price of all renewables are going down, when the cost of production for all the others are going up.

    And those countries trying to go as much renewables as possible without you nay-sayers saying “no way, it can’t work, you’re a fool, STOP! STOP YOU’RE KILLING THE PLANET!!!!”, are finding that

    a) they’re reaching targets much much earlier, a Canadian energy company who fought tooth and claw against building renewables did a complete 180 when they were told “do it or we find someone who will”.
    b) finding it cheaper to build out than feared
    c) finding that their balance of payments have improved greatly

    therefore have increased manyfold their required renewable roll-out.

  47. #47 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    (note: the current designs need weapons-grade materials to generate their power because it’s cheaper to produce a design like that. Which is why these designs DO NOT solve any proliferation problems).

    This is complete rubbish. Reactors designed for power generation *do not* use ‘weapons-grade’ fuel *nor* do they produce weapons-grade material as waste. You are shockingly ill informed on a very important issue.

    Yes, weapons-grade uranium can be *diluted* and used as fuel but that is absolutely *not* what you are claiming here. Someone has been filling your head with nonsense.

  48. #48 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    Here’s my prediction for the next twenty years:

    - Renewables will fail to deliver on capacity, reliability and budget (this is already a major issue in the UK, where we are really trying to do something with wind)

    - AGW will continue to bite

    - Obsolescence will force closure of coal-fired plant

    - Nuclear will be built to replace coal for baseload because it will by now be evident that renewables are unsuitable for baseload and are not dispatchable.

    - Renewables will be be used in conjunction with nuclear in the developed world

    - God knows what will happen in developing economies – it’s perfectly possible that they will carry on burning coal for baseload

  49. #49 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Reactors designed for power generation *do not* use ‘weapons-grade’ fuel *nor* do they produce weapons-grade material as waste

    Then why is North Korea and Iran not allowed their nuclear power program?

    BECAUSE OF PROLIFERATION FEARS.

    Apparently, the USA and UK don’t agree with you. And they have people who study this for a living.

    Yes, weapons-grade uranium can be *diluted* and used as fuel but that is absolutely *not* what you are claiming here.

    Current thorium designs require enriched beyond the power station level enrichment of fissile materials to generate power. The continuing replacement of these materials by the products of thorium is how they are called “Thorium reactors”.

    Apparently, when you said “We know”, you should have excluded yourself from the list…

  50. #50 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Here’s my prediction for the next twenty years:

    - Renewables will fail to deliver on capacity, reliability and budget (this is already a major issue in the UK, where we are really trying to do something with wind)

    Well, it;s already been proven wrong in Germany, Denmark, Scotland and Sweden.

    You failed your prediction even before you made it.

  51. #51 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    - AGW will continue to bite

    Well, duh.

    - Nuclear will be built to replace coal for baseload because it will by now be evident that renewables are unsuitable for baseload and are not dispatchable.

    This “not dispatchable” is complete and utter bullshit. It doesn’t even mean anything.

    And since renewables are load-following, you actually need about 80% of the power generation capacity of “baseload-biased” generation to cover the requirements. Proven in California in a study, IIRC, in 2008.

    France is in deep shit because they have so much nuclear generation. And Germany is making out like bandits from their move to renewables since their load-following renewable generation will export daytime (high value) energy to France and France exports nighttime (low value) overproduction at below generation cost (else it is just going to waste) to Germany.

    Germany’s balance of payments to France increased in their favour by over 10% because of their shift to renewables.

  52. #52 Wow
    March 20, 2013
  53. #53 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    No, Wow, you are just saying stuff. And we are reaching the point of can’t-be-bothered.

    NK and Iran aren’t making fuel for power reactors alone – they are enriching for weapons, hence the problems. Weapons-grade uranium (WGU) is enriched to over 95% U-235. Reactor fuel is enriched to about 4%. You are just saying stuff. Has it ever occurred to you (as it has to others) that fuel can be made in one country and supplied to another if the recipient doesn’t play nicely with others? That gets round the proliferation problem easily enough.

    Why are you still wittering on about thorium? I’ve been talking about Gen III right from the outset. See here.

  54. #54 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    Give me numbers (with solid refs) not more bloody assertions.

    Percentage of electricity generated:

    Germany?
    Scotland?
    Denmark?
    Sweden?

  55. #55 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    And Ontario shows your prediction already broken:

    http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/21/ontario-phasing-out-coal/

    The UK government can decide to scupper renewables, indeed seem hell bent on doing so, but this is no more about the renewables than the fall of the Twin Towers was due to the cleaners being inefficient.

  56. #56 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    WTF are you on about?

    This “not dispatchable” is complete and utter bullshit. It doesn’t even mean anything.

    And since renewables are load-following,

    ‘Not dispatchable’ means ‘not load following’. You haven’t got a clue, have you? Not a fucking clue.

  57. #57 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    No, Wow, you are just saying stuff.

    Yes, it’s called “communicating”.

    You now have to engage the brain. It’s called “listening”. Give it a go.

    Your prediction is already wrong.

    What does that tell you about the thought processes that led you to that assertion?

  58. #58 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    ‘Not dispatchable’ means ‘not load following’.

    Nope, it doesn’t.

    “Not load following” would (if tautologically so), but that is what nuclear and coal power generators are: not load following. Dinworig is.

    And it’s neither nuclear nor coal.

    I’m afraid you’re heavily Braying here.

  59. #59 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Do you think that those numbers are not available?

  60. #60 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Way back in the 2000′s Bray was demanding “SHOW ME the figures for how many scientists agreed with AGW!”.

    Deep deep derping Braying going on with you here.

  61. #61 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    Wow

    Dinorwig is pumped hydro. Nuclear is for baseload. Coal is for baseload. We need baseload.

    Then you need dispatchable capacity for load following, usually gas-fired plant.

    You are totally, hilariously wrong about your definitions you eejit – FFS look it up instead of frantically digging deeper – although the terminal damage is done, I’m afraid.

    *Dispatchable* = *load following*. In grown-up world ;-)

    Give me the numbers to back up your assertions or withdraw your assertions. I challenge them all.

    Percentage of electricity generated:

    Germany?
    Scotland?
    Denmark?
    Sweden?

  62. #62 BBD
    March 20, 2013

    Calling me names when your ignorance leads to to fuck up hideously is not the best way of handling the situation.

    Google and apology might do better.

  63. #63 David B. Benson
    March 20, 2013

    chameleon — I regularly check
    http://bravenewclimate.proboards.com/index.cgi
    and there are many actual engineers who comment there. It is a much more rational place with an excellent post facto moderator.

  64. #64 David B. Benson
    March 20, 2013

    BBD appears to have come to much the same conclusion as I have.

    I point out that the French NPPs can and do load follow. That is only rarely done in the USA, but I know of an instance around here.

  65. #65 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    BBD appears to have come to much the same conclusion as I have.

    I would attribute that to both of you being blinkered to the facts, when those facts are not beneficial to nuclear power.

  66. #66 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    I point out that the French NPPs can and do load follow.

    Except they don’t.

    You can dial back a little but that runs less efficiently and it takes over 24hours to spin up a nuclear power station from cold.

    This is why France sells so much night time power to other countries and why it is sold below cost.

  67. #67 Vince Whirlwind
    March 20, 2013

    Brad Keyes, always good for a laugh, says,

    When Wow is “debating” me I tend to suspect he’s on the Heartland payroll.

    Nobody “debates” you, Brad, we just occasionally pelt you with peanuts.

  68. #68 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Calling me names when your ignorance leads to to fuck up hideously

    Uh, no, the fuck ups (in the same case as Bray’s derping insistence on similar “fuck ups” by everyone else other than him and his denier chums) are in your imagination.

    And calling you names? No, I’ve only described your actions. If those apt descriptions of your actions are offensive to you, then DON’T DO THEM.

    Fuck, talk about “calling me names” under those definitions, what the fuck do you think YOU are doing???

    Sending bloody love letters????

    Wow

    Dinorwig is pumped hydro. Nuclear is for baseload.

    Yes.

    Dinworig will follow loads and is not nuclear.

    Baseload is THE MINIMUM of power requirements. NOT “load following” as you asserted in #56.

    Really? You call “hilarious fuckup” on me after THAT howler?

    You really are a mental midget with an ego out of all proportion.

    But France can’t keep baseload: they have to have backup in more nukes because it’s out for 20% of the time. So they produce 120% of what they need and find that they overproduce at night.

    Worse, since they can’t afford to have many more idle nuke stations, when daytime comes along, they’re unable to produce their needs and have to buy it in from Germany, for example, where renewables are ramping up because, as so many anti-renewable idiots bray about all the time “The sun shines only during the day”.

    And morning/evening, sea breezes mean wind power are ramping up for the waking up/coming home ritual when solar finally begins to drop its capacity (you can get 8+hours of midday capacity with solar-tracking solar panels).

    In winter, when you may need heating, winds are generally stronger.

    In a hot summer, there sun is bright, and people want cooling.

    In summer, when the rivers are hot, the nuclear power station can’t keep cool and have to shut down or go boom.

    If the rains are lacking and there’s a drought, there’s not enough water and again, nuke plants have to shut down or go boom.

    And they don’t like being flooded.

  69. #69 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    You are totally, hilariously wrong about your definitions you eejit – FFS look it up instead of frantically digging deeper

    Says someone who doesn’t nother looking it up and demands “Where are the figures for Germany, Denmark, Scotland…”.

    Yeah, you’re not doing your brain any favours by letting it out of its leash like this. It’s failing HARD and you’re waving it around like a flag.

  70. #70 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    *Dispatchable* = *load following*. In grown-up world

    Then you and David are COMPLETELY WRONG calling nuclear dispatchable.

    But what it means?

    Well, lets look at some dictionary definitions which would have been the reasoning behind using that word:

    Dispatch
    Verb:
    1. To relegate to a specific destination or send on specific business. See Synonyms at send1.
    2.
    a. To complete, transact, or dispose of promptly.
    b. To eat up (food); finish off (a dish or meal).

    noun.
    1. The act of sending off, as to a specific destination.

    So any electrical generation can manage this.

    There is “Dispatchable Standby Generator”, but since nuke plants take ages to warm up, Hydro, geothermal, Solar Thermal, Pressurised storage, and similar storage theories are dispatchable.

    And gas turbines can start in an hour or two, depending on size.

    But “load following”? DSG?

    No.

    DSG doesn’t follow loads.

    It sits in standby.

    It goes on or goes off to fill in for peaks.

    Then again, a Wind Turbine in the wind can be turned off to not generate and is sitting there ready to start off at a moments notice. It takes a few minutes to start up, maybe even several minutes.

    If you had 120% capacity in wind, the 20% could be idled and only need the angle of attack of the blades changed to “dispatch” these “standby generators” in minutes.

    Not as good as most stored power standby power, but better than almost every other generation method.

  71. #71 Vince Whirlwind
    March 20, 2013

    BBD,

    - Renewables will fail to deliver on capacity, reliability and budget (this is already a major issue in the UK, where we are really trying to do something with wind)

    The UK hasn’t just done virtually nothing with wind, but their government has broken the law by producing a pro-nuclear policy-informing report on their energy options.
    Sad to see people taken in by the propaganda. Reminds me of Tony Blair’s disastrous privatisation push.

    Nuclear is for baseload. Coal is for baseload. We need baseload

    Gosh, stuck in the ’80s are we?

    “baseload” is largely a myth used by spin-merchants.
    If you don’t believe me, check out Germany’s “baseload” 30 years ago, their “baseload” today, and that projected for 20 years hence.
    Gee, look at that incredible vanishing “baseload”.

    Even if we did need baseload to the extent propagandised by the nuke lobby, there is no economic case to be making for using nukes to produce it – they are utterly unaffordable.

    Did Wow point out the intermittent shutdown of French (and US) nuclear reactors during periods of peak demand caused by lack of water at a suitable temperature?

    Intermittent money-gobbling nukes v. intermittent cheap, clean wind turbines.
    No-brainer.

  72. #72 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Well, power storage DSG would follow loads if you could vary the output and it can only follow loads for the length of time of stored power.

    Hydro can, for a few hours. But it needs overproduction to restore its reservoir and can’t repeat the feat until then.

    Then again, renewable power can do the same. Dinworig generators pump the water up hill even if the electrons came from a wind turbine or hippy’s home solar panels.

  73. #73 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Did Wow point out the intermittent shutdown of French (and US) nuclear reactors during periods of peak demand caused by lack of water at a suitable temperature?

    It was ignored, though.

    It is not goodfact.

    Therefore double plus ungood, infoseek resolution: discard.

  74. #74 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    Fukushima can’t happen here?

    http://www.plux.co.uk/sizewell-flood-map/

    10% chance for Sizewell.

  75. #75 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/sizewell_nuclear_power_station_site_at_high_risk_of_flooding_report_1_1230582

    With an example of a minor incident:

    N Sizewell B was still off-line yesterday following an electrical fault. Engineers were continuing to work to find the problem, a spokesman said.

  76. #76 Wow
    March 20, 2013

    So nuclear is intermittent too…

  77. #77 David B. Benson
    March 21, 2013

    Power engineering terms —
    Baseload: the minimum power requirement over a ‘standard’ 24 hour period.
    Dispatchable: capable of being used to meet an expected or even unexpected load. Units which are unavailable are not dispatchable nor are units whose generation varies uncontrolled by the grid operators.
    Availability: the fraction (or percentage) of the time a generator can operate. Typically this is over 90% of the time for fossil fuel and nuclear generators, about 25% of onshore wind and at most 25% for solar.
    Capacity factor (CF): the equivalent fraction of time that a generator is running fully. Most grids run nuclear fully when available, coal burners at around 85% CF. If wind and solar are under ‘must take’ contract then the CF is the same as the availability.

  78. #78 David B. Benson
    March 21, 2013

    Responding to System Demand
    http://ansnuclearcafe.org/tag/load-following/

  79. #79 Vince Whirlwind
    March 21, 2013

    Baseload: the minimum power requirement over a ‘standard’ 24 hour period.

    An obsolete approach, the perpetuation of which serves the interests of certain dinosaurs.

    David Mills has a crack at educating you here:

    http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.htm

    And here is the modern situation as happening today in Germany:

    http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/graph-of-the-day-why-baseload-power-plants-will-disappear-77671

    Your baseload argument is propaganda and no longer applies.

  80. #80 Vince Whirlwind
    March 21, 2013

    baseload output is not a fundamental requirement of modern energy production. It is rather a characteristic of certain fossil, geothermal and nuclear plants that are operated continuously to lower their relative capital expenditure versus fuel cost.

    In a nutshell.

  81. #81 David B. Benson
    March 21, 2013

    Well Dr. David Mills has wrong definitions although his approach is interesting. Load is requirement; demand. I properly defined baseload. How it is met depends upon the mix of generators available. Around here that is almost 100% hydro.

    For Dr. David Mills approach to work he must have adequate storage for the longest interval that the wind does not blow or the sun does not shine (enough). Actually doing to calculations for whatever grid is of interest to you shows that a quite considerable overbuild is required. If the ratepayers do not mind the additional expense (Denmark and Germany come to mind, although both still have coal burners) then fine. Most would prefer a grid which is not only reliable and on-demand but as near to minimal cost as can be. So the storage changes from heat storage or pumped hydro storage to pre-heat storage such as nuclear pins (or that which we want to stop using, fossil fuels).

  82. #82 chameleon
    March 21, 2013

    David B, (and ironically BBD) :-)
    For no good reason, Vince and Wow are resorting to their usual unsubstantiated sneering/bullying tactics on someone who is only trying to talk some common sense.They seem to believe that power can be switched on or off anytime we like WITHOUT a base load requirement …or….perhaps equally absurdly…. that energy plants that supply that necessary baseload can just be switched on and off like their switches at home??????
    I will endeavour to work out how to use the link at #63 and hopefully discover that there are more rational and sensible people around.
    I find it rather amusing that BBD is now complaining that he is being treated unfairly (via unsubstantiated personal assassination tactics) by the same people he encourages when he and they use exactly the same process on commenters like me.
    In the meantime, re baseload and reliable dispatchable energy have you and BBD ever come accross posts like these?
    http://papundits.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/renewable-power-a-ticking-bomb/
    If you can disregard the political perspective, I think you may find that this post and several others by this person clearly outlines the dilemna that you and BBD are attempting to highlight here.
    (and ironically, I will now have to wait approx 24 hours before you get to see this comment partly thanks to BBD’s unsubstantiated paranoid assumptions about me)

  83. #83 bill
    March 21, 2013

    Gee, you come here for the latest installment of the soap, and instead they’ve replaced it with the Jerry Springer ‘Nukes – Duke It Out’ show… ;-)

    I mean did the wife turn out to be the long-lost half-sister, or what?

  84. #84 Brad Keyes
    March 21, 2013

    Wow,

    this is a lie:

    Way back in the 2000′s [Brad] was demanding “SHOW ME the figures for how many scientists agreed with AGW!”.

    Why would I care how many scientists “agree with” AGW when I myself am pro-AGW? I want to know how many scientists believe in seriously net-dangerous AGW.

    Liars aren’t welcome on this thread.

    Why are you still here, exactly?

  85. #85 chameleon
    March 21, 2013

    Well Bill,
    That might be because future energy needs is a way more important topic and a way more interesting topic than your nonsense sideshow.

  86. #86 David B. Benson
    March 21, 2013
  87. #87 Vince Whirlwind
    March 21, 2013

    David, you’re compounding your obsolete idea of “baseload” with an equally outdated concept of “overbuild”.
    It just doesn’t work that way any more. Germany produces in excess of 20% of its electricity from renewables (only 3.5% hydro), so it’s had to grapple with this change in approach.
    The idea that power plants that can’t vary their output get 100% guaranteed access to the power market (with fully-externalised cost of emissions), with other operators forced to compete for the remaining variable demand no longer applies.
    Renewables will produce all they can up to the limit of what they want to take to market, while the inflexible continuous-production power plants are unable to vary supply in response to demand, and therefore are forced to sell at a loss, as is the case with the French power companies lumbered with nukes.
    Times are a-changing.
    In Germany, the inherent variability in demand is compounded by intermittency in supply by a factor of between 2 or 3. This just has to be dealt with.

    Here in Australia, we have the luxury of ample choice for siting of wind turbines, resulting in us getting four times the output/installed capacity that the Germans are working with.
    If *they* can get it to work with 7%, imagine how much easier it will be for us with our 30%!
    It is a complete waste of time to consider nukes here (at least) because there is no conceivable way they could become a political reality even, let alone demonstrate any viable competition with all other sources on economic terms.

    I was just reading some pro-nuke rant that pooh-poohed solar by claiming that to provide Germany with 100% solar power would require a solar farm the size of Bavaria.
    Now, I’ve driven across Bavaria. It didn’t take long. And I would say scores of such solar farms could fit here in Australia, with only a single one, a quarter the size of Bavaria required for our power needs. (OK, more, because we’re so retarded with energy efficiency).

    One thing the pro-nuke lobby is good at, is throwing out unrealistic scenarios (100% solar+crowded country) and disregarding the forward march of technology.
    Which is funny really, because whenever they try to convince us nuclear is an option, it’s always vapourware like “Gen IV” and “thorium” and some imaginary magic that will take care of nuclear waste.

  88. #88 Vince Whirlwind
    March 21, 2013

    Yes, devloping countries will be sold nukes, for the same reason companies like Nestle target them once their homes markets becase saturated.

    Not really something to be proud of or boast about, but yet more proof of the unethical nature of the energy industry’s most dirty, dangerous, and dishonest corner.

  89. #89 David B. Benson
    March 21, 2013

    Vince Whirlwind — The definition I gave of baseload is US industry standard. Deal with it.

    As for various countries deciding on NPPs, I assume that most of the planners, economists and engineers are rational. Deal with that as well.

    As for using once through nuclear pins, read “Plentiful Energy”. The design is commericialized by GE-Hitachi. As you said, the forward march of technology but I only consider equipment which has been shown to work when attempting to treat the complexities of a low cost, low carbon, reliable, on demand grid.

  90. #90 David B. Benson
    March 21, 2013

    CROSS-BORDER TRADE IN ELECTRICITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLES-
    BASED ELECTRIC POWER: LESSONS FROM EUROPE
    OECD Trade and Environment Paper No. 2013/02
    by Heymi Bahar and Jehan Sauvage
    COM/TAD/ENV/JWPTE(2012)20/FINAL
    provides an annex about electric power basics and central definitions. The paper itself mostly explains the power markets as done in Europe. Note in particular ‘merit order’ and the accompanying figure.

  91. #91 David B. Benson
    March 21, 2013

    All epex spot prices are positive:
    http://www.epexspot.com/en/market-data/auction

  92. #92 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “Yes, devloping countries will be sold nukes,”

    Unless we don’t like them for some reason.

  93. #93 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    ” Note in particular ‘merit order’ and the accompanying figure.”

    However, it is a description of the system that is there, not a system that could be there.

    The merit order is therefore a statement of what is, not what could be and is not about merit in itselt.

  94. #94 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    Spain 18%. Denmark 20%.

    Germany had a 24 hour peak of 50% of their power generation via renewables. Though I might me mixing that up with Denmark or Spain.

  95. #95 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “Baseload: the minimum power requirement over a ‘standard’ 24 hour period.”

    So not following load.

    Load changes over the 24 hour period.

    And the need for a 24 hour period? Because it takes that long for a large coal or nuclear power station to ramp up from cold to fully operational.

    Therefore, as Vince says, a shibboleth of the old system. A nonexistent thing brought into being to explain what they did. Not something inherent to electricity use at all.

  96. #96 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    “In Germany, the inherent variability in demand is compounded by intermittency in supply by a factor of between 2 or 3. This just has to be dealt with.”

    However, the load is equally (by the definitions that apply to wind or solar) intermittent by a factor of 2 or 3. THAT TOO HAS TO BE DEALT WITH.

    Even when it isn’t wind powered.

  97. #97 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    this is a lie:

    Way back in the 2000′s [Brad] was demanding “SHOW ME the figures for how many scientists agreed with AGW!”.

    Oh, it was somewhere in the thousands, then.

  98. #98 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    PS that isn’t what I wrote. YOU are the one who demanded that if it were in quote marks, it had to be a quote and could not be changed from the actual wording.

    Seems like not even you believe yourself.

  99. #99 Wow
    March 21, 2013

    Power engineering terms —
    Baseload: the minimum power requirement over a ‘standard’ 24 hour period.

    OLD SYSTEM power engineering terms. You know, like the aether: a term that was widely used in physics but was a shibboleth of the time.

    24 hours because it takes about that time to turn on a coal or nuke station.

    If we hadn’t gone that route and done microgeneration, “baseload” would not exist, because there’d be no need to define it.

    Dispatchable: capable of being used to meet an expected or even unexpected load.

    Which is not coal or nuclear power, then. Despite your insistences that it is, it doesn’t by this definition.

    Units which are unavailable are not dispatchable

    What the hell does that mean? If there is no generator? Or is it just if the generator is not running at that time?

    Because the latter is ridiculous.

    nor are units whose generation varies uncontrolled by the grid operators.”

    So wind and solar can be.

    You can turn the AoA of the blades of standing turbines that are not extracting power and the wind passing by will turn the blades where they did not before.

    And you know how fast the wind is blowing.

    But you can’t have coal or nuclear standing by and ramp it up from cold to running when you want it.

  100. #100 Brad Keyes
    March 21, 2013

    Wow:

    Oh, it was somewhere in the thousands, then.

    No, it was somewhere in your febrile imagination.

    PS that isn’t what I wrote. YOU are the one who demanded that if it were in quote marks, it had to be a quote and could not be changed from the actual wording.

    Seems like not even you believe yourself.

    I’m sorry, are you talking to me? Because I have no idea what you’re referring to.

    a shibboleth of the old system. A nonexistent thing brought into being to explain what they did.

    You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.