4 ms·

Even in that case, it is only 2021 that it happened. So VRE has not exceed nuclear for "several years." You are guilty of your own accusation of constantly lyin

by _hypx 4y ago

Even in that case, it is only 2021 that it happened. So VRE has not exceed nuclear for "several years." You are guilty of your own accusation of constantly lying. Also, Eastern nuclear power growth has displace Western nuclear shutdowns. So the total amount is in fact a plateau. I did not know that until now. Ultimately, the main issue is still the problem of intermittency. Until it is solved, VRE is actually much less useful than it seems on a chart. Even in a scenario where it exceeds 100% of demand, there will still be huge shortages on certain days. Ironically, the best way of solving this is via hydrogen production, but VRE advocates despise that idea.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
> Even in that case, it is only 2021 that it happened. So VRE has not exceed nuclear for "several years." You are guilty of your own accusation of constantly lying. Last I checked it was almost a month into 2023, not part way through 2021 when the production had been higher for a whole year already. > Also, Eastern nuclear power growth has displace Western nuclear shutdowns. So the total amount is in fact a plateau. I did not know that until now. So you made up whatever you decided sounded good about today's producton? > Ultimately, the main issue is still the problem of intermittency. Until it is solved, VRE is actually much less useful than it seems on a chart. Even in a scenario where it exceeds 100% of demand, there will still be huge shortages on certain days. Ironically, the best way of solving this is via hydrogen production, but VRE advocates despise that idea. So you made up the stuff about the scope of production, doubled down on it when called out, and now you're making up stuff about intermittency. And finally you're trying to conflate rejection of hydrogen where it is appropriate with calling out your blatant fossil gas propaganda and shilling for hydrogen cars.
- _hypx 4y ago
  So two years, not several. I am not a walking encyclopedia. But you are a troll for acting like this. The point was that VRE is still a tiny part of the overall grid. It will stay like that for a long time to come. And the original point that hydrogen is some kind is scam for not being green enough right now is pure hypocrisy, because the grid is in a similar situation. And you immediately ignored the relevant points before launching into ad hominem and spouting off a conspiracy theory. Ironically, proving my point about how VRE fans do not want hydrogen production even though it solves the biggest weakness of VRE. Proving that VRE fans are just trolls these days and have nothing of relevance to say.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    The best you have is that I was slightly imprecise, I am happy to correct that to "around two years". You didn't need to be a walking encyclopaedia. You just needed to not state something if you didn't know it was true (this is called lying), and then not directly lie after looking up the correct answer and having it in front of you whilst citing the source that disagreed with you (this is called gaslighting). > The point was that VRE is still a tiny part of the overall grid. It will stay like that for a long time to come. 13% and growing exponentially by 5% of the total yoy isn't tiny. And intermittency doesn't even impose a need for dispatch, interchange, or storage until it hits at least 75%. > And the original point that hydrogen is some kind is scam for not being green enough right now is pure hypocrisy, because the grid is in a similar situation. Burning hydrogen for transport or heating is a much worse plan than using electricity directly. On top of heat pumps existing, seasonal sensible heat storage has a higher volumetric energy density than hydrogen, electric elements are much more efficient than electrolysis + transport, and fuel cells + electrolizers are worse than batteries by pretty much every metric. > And you immediately ignored the relevant points before launching into ad hominem and spouting off a conspiracy theory. Ironically, proving my point about how VRE fans do not want hydrogen production even though it solves the biggest weakness of VRE. Proving that VRE fans are just trolls these days and have nothing of relevance to say. Again, you're trying to conflate rejection of shoe-horning grey hydrogen into nonsensicle places whilst pretending it's green with rejection of hydrogen.
    - _hypx 4y ago
      So basically when you make a mistake, and the other person makes a mistake, it means that the other person is liar but you're just making a mistake. Got it. This conversation is going to end here. You are simply not worth debating against. You're just a huge troll and are wasting everyone's time by acting like this.
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        Refering to a thing being true during four separate calendar years as 'several' is perfectly valid. Similarly stating an outright falsehood with the source in front of you isn't a mistake, it's a lie. One that is part of the current fossil fuel and nuclear misinformation campaign. You having a tantrum and cry bullying when your lies are pointed out doesn't make me a troll. Quite the opposite.

by _hypx 4y ago

Schroedingersat 4y ago

> Even in that case, it is only 2021 that it happened. So VRE has not exceed nuclear for "several years." You are guilty of your own accusation of constantly lying. Last I checked it was almost a month into 2023, not part way through 2021 when the production had been higher for a whole year already. > Also, Eastern nuclear power growth has displace Western nuclear shutdowns. So the total amount is in fact a plateau. I did not know that until now. So you made up whatever you decided sounded good about today's producton? > Ultimately, the main issue is still the problem of intermittency. Until it is solved, VRE is actually much less useful than it seems on a chart. Even in a scenario where it exceeds 100% of demand, there will still be huge shortages on certain days. Ironically, the best way of solving this is via hydrogen production, but VRE advocates despise that idea. So you made up the stuff about the scope of production, doubled down on it when called out, and now you're making up stuff about intermittency. And finally you're trying to conflate rejection of hydrogen where it is appropriate with calling out your blatant fossil gas propaganda and shilling for hydrogen cars.

_hypx 4y ago
So two years, not several. I am not a walking encyclopedia. But you are a troll for acting like this. The point was that VRE is still a tiny part of the overall grid. It will stay like that for a long time to come. And the original point that hydrogen is some kind is scam for not being green enough right now is pure hypocrisy, because the grid is in a similar situation. And you immediately ignored the relevant points before launching into ad hominem and spouting off a conspiracy theory. Ironically, proving my point about how VRE fans do not want hydrogen production even though it solves the biggest weakness of VRE. Proving that VRE fans are just trolls these days and have nothing of relevance to say.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  The best you have is that I was slightly imprecise, I am happy to correct that to "around two years". You didn't need to be a walking encyclopaedia. You just needed to not state something if you didn't know it was true (this is called lying), and then not directly lie after looking up the correct answer and having it in front of you whilst citing the source that disagreed with you (this is called gaslighting). > The point was that VRE is still a tiny part of the overall grid. It will stay like that for a long time to come. 13% and growing exponentially by 5% of the total yoy isn't tiny. And intermittency doesn't even impose a need for dispatch, interchange, or storage until it hits at least 75%. > And the original point that hydrogen is some kind is scam for not being green enough right now is pure hypocrisy, because the grid is in a similar situation. Burning hydrogen for transport or heating is a much worse plan than using electricity directly. On top of heat pumps existing, seasonal sensible heat storage has a higher volumetric energy density than hydrogen, electric elements are much more efficient than electrolysis + transport, and fuel cells + electrolizers are worse than batteries by pretty much every metric. > And you immediately ignored the relevant points before launching into ad hominem and spouting off a conspiracy theory. Ironically, proving my point about how VRE fans do not want hydrogen production even though it solves the biggest weakness of VRE. Proving that VRE fans are just trolls these days and have nothing of relevance to say. Again, you're trying to conflate rejection of shoe-horning grey hydrogen into nonsensicle places whilst pretending it's green with rejection of hydrogen.
  - _hypx 4y ago
    So basically when you make a mistake, and the other person makes a mistake, it means that the other person is liar but you're just making a mistake. Got it. This conversation is going to end here. You are simply not worth debating against. You're just a huge troll and are wasting everyone's time by acting like this.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Refering to a thing being true during four separate calendar years as 'several' is perfectly valid. Similarly stating an outright falsehood with the source in front of you isn't a mistake, it's a lie. One that is part of the current fossil fuel and nuclear misinformation campaign. You having a tantrum and cry bullying when your lies are pointed out doesn't make me a troll. Quite the opposite.