Kudos for a measured response to my sometimes snarky tone.

https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2021/12/technical-and-economic-aspects-of-load-following-with-nuclear-power-plants_30eb3b02/29e7df00-en.pdf

I only had the time to read the executive summary of this thing, but I learned a bit more about nuclear power plants.

It’s still not enough for me to evaluate how well that can integrate with a grid dominated by renewables (can the load following be fast enough, to match wind and solar fluctuations) but still good to know more.

That’s a super basic view on the science of nuclear power. As an engineer, I need a lot more than that, because it needs a lot more to put basic principles into working projects.

So, is there a nuclear powerplant, that exists outside of some powerpoint slides, that is actually used to match fluctuating generation from other energy sources and/or fluctuating demands?

All of the ones I know are/were used to provide a base supply by running more or less 24/7 at their designated output, not least because they need to do that to be even somehow economically feasible.

Where’s an example for an operating nuclear power-plant that can be dialed down to match demand?

Afaik they have lots of momentum (for days even), and even their propenents argue for them being critical for providing a base supply¹. Never have I heard anyone claiming they’d be good for matching fluctuating demand. Can you back that up?

Or are you getting your anti-reneweblaes lobbying talking points mixed up? That argument is usually used for natural gas plants.

¹ which doesn’t make sense in a renewables dominated grid.

Nuclear isn’t exactly ‘burning fuel’, at least not in a traditional sense. But I guess you just mean that as ‘consuming a finite, non-renewable ressource’ which it still does.

No disagreement, I’m just here to nitpick that bit of phrasing.

Strictly speaking that’s not efficiency, but a coefficient of performance.

And funny enough the work energy doesn’t even have to be electricity. It’s actually mechanical energy, that is required and you could even power a heat pump with a steam or diesel engine.

Each buffalo in the second picture represents 75 bison. By that metric, the first picture almost comes close to representing the third number. But the third picture just doesn’t fit here, and the first number is so huge you’d need at least 2000 times picture one to represent it.

I’m linguistically 100% convinced. Somehow I have an intuitive understanding of the concept. Wonder where that came from…

Didn’t you know? The enlightenment spreads like an ideology. Traditional physics outplayed.

A good summary. I doubt the person who tweeted (?xed?) that ignorance is going to read it, though. And even if they were to read it, would probably not listen. This is moon-landing-hoax level ignorance and its most likely performative and maliciously intended.

But kudos to you still. I hope your post reaches other ill-informed, but less ignorant people, who need to hear this and might even appreciate, that you are enlightening the dark sides of their knowledge.

You got your science all wrong. Global warming is about the earths athmosphere, which is gaseous. When gases get COMPRESSED they become HOTTER. The earth becoming smaller means the atmosphere is becoming SMALLER too, so the gas gets COMPRESSEd! Climate change is because the earth is getting smaller! And they want you to use less oil and gasoline and hook you up to the sun and stuff like heroin addict!!

/s

Shouldn’t be a surprise, that some people are dumb as hell.

Well, not if you still want to have some fun while doing so.

But I agree, that a regular bike should suffice and you don’t need to worry about optimizing gear weight if you’re not competing for anything and just ride it for your own well-being.

Ever heard of footnotes? :p

Mathematically speaking it can’t be, because if you put it in relation to only the OTHER people, you’d have to divide by zero which ends up non defined.

It only works out when you put it in relation to ALL people within those criteria, thus dividing by one.

I know statistics is different from simple fractions, but the arithmetic mean is close enough to nitpick the phrasing like that.

But the consequence is the same: it’s nonsensical. N=1 means: “B*tch, I am the mean, the median, ALL the percentiles and the outlier!”

Somebody should put this in a rap track.

Metal in general. Not too many lovesongs there.

And the exceptions sound like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-t7z-UXllBM

They’re onto something though.

‘Trains of thought’ is a good metaphor, because your thoughts do run on rails, and they do track improvement and maintenance each time you use one pathway.

That’s why it’s not that simple, to just think positively, and maybe you need antidepressants to even do that. But it’s part of therapy to try to leave those trails more often and lay new tracks that lead to more positive places so you hopefully won’t need antidepressants for the rest of your life.

I learnt a lot through Russell Barkley’s youtube Channel. A retired ADHD researcher.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0tLWu7ljYVFPiZQfHjTMsA

He has also retired his Channel now, so no new content. But that’s recent, so his videos aren’t too outdated and I learned a lot about ADHD through them without having to weed through misinformation.