3 ms·
What is your argument...? Are you admitting "being intermittent is bad," while ignoring Solar is intermittent like 70% of the time vs 10% of the time for Nuclea
by __pache__ 4y ago
What is your argument...? Are you admitting "being intermittent is bad," while ignoring Solar is intermittent like 70% of the time vs 10% of the time for Nuclear?
...great argument?
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37252 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37252
doesn't seem like you interpreted this correctly, seems bad faith for sure.
> A scheduled shutdown of a nuclear power plant is generally timed to coincide with the plant’s refueling cycle. Nuclear power plants typically refuel every 18 to 24 months, often during the fall and spring when electricity demand is lower.
It's shut down every ~2 years, not "every year."
> _During the past six years, average refueling outages have become shorter, decreasing from an average of 46 days in 2012 to 34 days in 2018._
They're getting better and better.
So adjust the above 10% downtime number I gave, Nuclear is down ~3-5% of the time it sounds like. With improvements, this can probably get down to 1%. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
EDIT: not to mention this is an implementation problem. You can have multiple small reactors that never need maintenance where you just hot swap an old reactor for a new one.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-reactors-smrs https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/what-are-small-modular-...
The anti-science crowd is nuts on this stuff.. it's not _that hard..._
- derriz 4y agoI though my argument was clear - that you need back-up for nuclear power also? You accuse me of bad faith for quoting a number which includes both unscheduled and scheduled shutdowns by comparing with a number which only include the latter. And I don't even understand where this is supposed to be going because even if plants never had unscheduled stoppages, you'd still need back-up. But anyway, I find your tone overly aggressive. So it's unlikely that any discussion will be productive.
- goodpoint 4y agoDon't feed the trolls.
- __pache__ 4y ago> I though my argument was clear - that you need back-up for nuclear power also? Right, but who said otherwise? Your arguing against a straw man that doesn't exist, no one said: you never have to do maintenance on Nuclear. Clearly Nuclear is 100x more reliable than Solar/Wind, easily. > you'd still need back-up. who said otherwise......... who are you arguing against? not making sense... this isn't relevant to what I'm saying.. > But anyway, I find your tone overly aggressive. So it's unlikely that any discussion will be productive. fair enough! would appreciate you admitting you grossly misinterpreted the stats on the nuclear data you gave. seems bad faith. have a good one
- Schroedingersat 4y agohttps://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAvailabilityFactor.aspx https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/ThreeYrsEnergyAva...