3 ms·
Yes you do "need _something_ for base load", obviously. And noone appears to have any reliable solution to this apart from nuclear. So commonsense is playing a
by lazyeye 1y ago
Yes you do "need _something_ for base load", obviously. And noone appears to have any reliable solution to this apart from nuclear. So commonsense is playing a part here (not something you often see, particular in the HN comments section).
- refulgentis 1y agoI'm kind of stunned how much extra effort you put into being condescending over and over during a contribution whose idea is "only nuclear is reliable for base load" Kinda shocking we have a power system then, no? :)
- lazyeye 1y agoNo it's not shocking. For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear (as part of the mix) if we want to go fully carbon-free. I'm not explaining anything complicated here.
- refulgentis 1y agoI don't know what you're trying to say, at all, really, because you were very condescending and now, very short. "For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear" is false. "For base-load 24/7 power the cleanest, by far, option w/r/t greenhouse gases is nuclear" is true. "For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear (as part of the mix)" is nigh-unparsable. In any case, it's unreasonable to claim I thought the following was false: For base-load 24/7 power the cleanest, by far, option w/r/t greenhouse gases is nuclear Nothing in my comment could plausibly indicate it. In fact, my comment says: "Only real argument is "but you need _something_ for base load"" Also in any case, your tone in both cases has robbed us of a positive interaction, in favor of you getting to feel good, but really smug, for 30 seconds after your first comment.
- lazyeye 1y agook I was assuming you would understand the obvious context in which nuclear power was being discussed. And I dont feel good or smug or anything like that. I'II leave it there.