4 ms·

[deleted due to severely condescending comment below]

by 8372049 2y ago

kragen 2y ago
it's good that you're starting to learn some of the basics of how real-time energy markets work, but most of the things you have said are unfortunately nonsense
- 8372049 2y ago
  What an exceptionally unconstructive and condescending comment.
  - kragen 2y ago
    oddly enough, that's what i thought about your now-deleted misconception-filled comment, but i thought maybe it was worthwhile to try to engage positively guess i failed at that
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Deleting yours removes any hope of a conversation.
    - 8372049 2y ago
      Didn't seem like there was much hope of that with the response I got anyway. I'm not here to take condescending comments with no substance (i.e. pointing out why it supposedly was nonsense), so I decided it was better to remove the comment and move on.
      - Dylan16807 2y ago
        Okay but this way it's hard not to treat it as if you did in fact post nonsense. And whether you said something right or wrong I at least would have liked to see it. Especially when it gets a callout like that.
        kragen 2y ago
        if you want to read plausible misconceptions about electric grid operations and stability you can get gpt-4 to generate an unbounded stream of them
        8372049 2y ago
        > Okay but this way it's hard not to treat it as if you did in fact post nonsense. All the more reason for me to stop engaging, isn't it? The gist of it was that nuclear power is insufficient in and of itself because it is hard to regulate output to match grid requirements, and therefore that we need both nuclear and renewable energy sources, not just one or the other. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, I'm out of here either way.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > All the more reason for me to stop engaging, isn't it? No, I don't think so. The skepticism all comes from your initial comment, not the followups. > The gist of it was that nuclear power is insufficient in and of itself because it is hard to regulate output to match grid requirements, and therefore that we need both nuclear and renewable energy sources, not just one or the other. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, I'm out of here either way. Oh well that specific point is wrong. Modern nuclear can adjust its output quickly and within a wide range if the operator wants it to. We could run a 100% nuclear grid. The fundamental issue at hand is price, not capability, because reducing output makes the cost per watt go up.
        kragen 2y ago
        also modern nuclear is probably too expensive to compete with batteries; steam turbines aren't getting cheaper fast enough, while both batteries and power semiconductors are improving at a staggering rate. there's no reason to expect that nuclear power will constitute any percentage of the power grid at all 20 or 40 years from now. 10 or 100 years from now, yes

[deleted due to severely condescending comment below]

it's good that you're starting to learn some of the basics of how real-time energy markets work, but most of the things you have said are unfortunately nonsense

8372049 2y ago
What an exceptionally unconstructive and condescending comment.
- kragen 2y ago
  oddly enough, that's what i thought about your now-deleted misconception-filled comment, but i thought maybe it was worthwhile to try to engage positively guess i failed at that
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Deleting yours removes any hope of a conversation.
  - 8372049 2y ago
    Didn't seem like there was much hope of that with the response I got anyway. I'm not here to take condescending comments with no substance (i.e. pointing out why it supposedly was nonsense), so I decided it was better to remove the comment and move on.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Okay but this way it's hard not to treat it as if you did in fact post nonsense. And whether you said something right or wrong I at least would have liked to see it. Especially when it gets a callout like that.
      - kragen 2y ago
        if you want to read plausible misconceptions about electric grid operations and stability you can get gpt-4 to generate an unbounded stream of them
      - 8372049 2y ago
        > Okay but this way it's hard not to treat it as if you did in fact post nonsense. All the more reason for me to stop engaging, isn't it? The gist of it was that nuclear power is insufficient in and of itself because it is hard to regulate output to match grid requirements, and therefore that we need both nuclear and renewable energy sources, not just one or the other. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, I'm out of here either way.
        Dylan16807 2y ago
        > All the more reason for me to stop engaging, isn't it? No, I don't think so. The skepticism all comes from your initial comment, not the followups. > The gist of it was that nuclear power is insufficient in and of itself because it is hard to regulate output to match grid requirements, and therefore that we need both nuclear and renewable energy sources, not just one or the other. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm not, I'm out of here either way. Oh well that specific point is wrong. Modern nuclear can adjust its output quickly and within a wide range if the operator wants it to. We could run a 100% nuclear grid. The fundamental issue at hand is price, not capability, because reducing output makes the cost per watt go up.
        kragen 2y ago
        also modern nuclear is probably too expensive to compete with batteries; steam turbines aren't getting cheaper fast enough, while both batteries and power semiconductors are improving at a staggering rate. there's no reason to expect that nuclear power will constitute any percentage of the power grid at all 20 or 40 years from now. 10 or 100 years from now, yes