Sylvia said:
That's true to a point, in the sense that it allows stations that were
not built as baseload stations to run for more of the time, and
therefore more efficiently use their capital. Thought there's a limit
to that, because they're not usually designed to run 24/7.
It defers it to some degree, but the more you run what were designed
as non-baseload plants, the faster they wear out.
A more signficant reason for shifting loads to off-peak times is that
it reduces the transmission infrastructure required - though that is
largely dictated by airconditioning loads on hot days. Of course, it
helps if people aren't running their pool pumps at the same time.
If people don't want coal, then we should cut to the chase and build
nuclear.
Oh great, so we can just jump on to another peak-oil like gravy train that
will eventually end!
How long do you think the cheap nuke fuel is going to last? It'll be cheap
for you, but not your grandkids.
Where are they going to put the waste long-term?, and how much is that going
to cost? (Hint, no one's actually figured that one out yet)
Renewable is the only sensible way to go.
The problem is that the Greenies keep feeding the disinformation line
to the effect that baseload power can be supplied by solar and
windfarms, which it can't, quite apart from the cost.
There are other forms of renewable energy too you know. Invest properly in
more research and then combine them all and it's quite possible to
tranistion fully to renewable over time.
Dave.
