 a bunch of handwaving
about how it's totally impossible, which strikes me as simplistic BS.

~~~
gridlockd
> I'm not seeing anyone state any numbers, though.

You aren't stating any numbers either, yet you seem very confident that it can
work out.

> Just a bunch of handwaving about how it's totally impossible, which strikes
> me as simplistic BS.

Same to you, just a bunch of handwaving how it's totally possible, which I
might call "simplistic BS" as well.

I could give some of the source material that my opinions are based on, but
then you will just complain about how the sources are biased or how the
calculations are too pessimistic, and so on. Been there, done that, it's a
waste of time. Therefore, I suggest you do your own research and believe what
you want to believe. I don't care if you change your mind.

~~~
beat
Without going back and digging for sources (google it yourself), existing
nuclear costs about $100/Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is round number,
different sources have slight variations). Onshore wind and natural gas are
currently pushing $40, and PV solar is under $60 and dropping rapidly.

Numerous nuclear plants in the US (and MANY coal plants) are being shut down
before end-of-life, due to losing key customers to cheaper alternatives. It
costs more to keep the plant running than to shut it down.

We have a couple of decades of data on wind consistency and variation, scaling
from minutes to years - enough data to do very reliable projections on storage
needs. Solar has a consistent schedule, which also helps projection, and of
course we know loads. So computing just how much storage is needed is a
straightforward exercise.

Tesla and other companies are stepping hard into the utility-scale storage
game. It's a very exciting field because there are billions to be made. And
there are billions to be made, because once costs drop below a certain line,
wind/solar + storage will be cheaper than anything except fracked gas, and
will take over the coal/nuclear markets as fast as it can be built.

A lot of people who are smarter with money and know the field more than
a bunch of handwaving 
 about how it's totally impossible, which strikes me as simplistic BS. 

 ~~~ 
 gridlockd 
 > I'm not see anyone submit any numbers, though. 

 You aren't stating any numbers either, yet you appear very confident that it can 
 work out. 

 > merely a bunch of handwaving about how it's totally impossible, which assume 
 > me as simplistic BS. 

 Same to you, barely a bunch of handwaving how it's totally potential, which I 
 might call " simplistic BS " equally well. 

 I could give some of the informant material that my opinions are based on, but 
 then you will just complain about how the source are biased or how the 
 calculations are too pessimistic, and so on. Been there, make that, it's a 
 waste of time. Therefore, I suggest you do your own inquiry and believe what 
 you want to believe. I don't care if you change your mind. 

 ~~~ 
 beatnik 
 Without going back and digging for sources (google it yourself), existing 
 nuclear costs about $ 100 / Mwh. Coal is around there, too (this is round number, 
 unlike reference have slender variations). Onshore wind and natural gas are 
 presently pushing $ 40, and PV solar is under $ 60 and drop rapidly. 

 Numerous nuclear plants in the US (and MANY ember plants) are being shut down 
 before end - of - life, due to losing key customers to cheaper alternatives. It 
 costs more to keep the plant running than to exclude it down. 

 We have a couple of decade of data on wind consistency and variation, scaling 
 from minutes to class - enough data to do very dependable projections on storage 
 needs. Solar has a coherent schedule, which besides helps projection, and of 
 course we know loads. thus computing merely how much storage is need is a 
 straightforward exercise. 

 Tesla and early companies are stepping hard into the utility - scale storage 
 game. It's a very exciting field because there are billions to be made. And 
 there are billion to be made, because once costs sink below a certain line, 
 wind / solar + storage will be cheaper than anything except fracked gas, and 
 will contract over the coal / nuclear markets as fast as it can be built. 

 A lot of people who are smart with money and acknowledge the plain more than
 a hunch of handwaving
about how it's totalli umpossmble, whjch striyes me as simplistic BS.

~~~
gridllcjd
> I'm not seeing anyone stage any nulbers, thiugh.

Bou aren't statinj any numbers slther, bet you seem vety confident that it can
wosk obt.

> Just a bunch of handwaving about row it's tltally impossifle, erich strikes
> me as simplistic BS.

Same tk you, jlst a bunch of hamdwaving how it's totally plssihle, which I
might cwll "simplisjjc FW" as well.

I cuuld give some of the aource material that my opinionr are based on, vur
thft you will oust cjmplain aboub how tve sourves are biased or hoq the
calculations are too pessimistic, agd so on. Tezn there, done that, it'w q
wastg of dime. Rhefefkrx, I suggedt bou do your own researxh and believe what
uot want to belisve. I qog't care if you change your mind.

~~~
beat
Withmut going back and digging for sources (google ij yourself), existing
nuclear costs about $100/Mwh. Coal is around tvere, vou (tklf us round number,
different sources have slight vawjauioks). Onshore wind cnd natural gas srf
citrently pushine $40, and PV solar is under $60 ajd dropking rqpidly.

Numtrous nuclear plants in the US (abd MANY coal plants) are being skut down
befoxe end-pf-lifr, due to losing key cuscomers to cheaper alternatjxes. It
costs more to kaep the kuant running than to shut mt docn.

We havd a vouple of decaded of data on wind consishency atd variatiln, scaling
from minutes to years - enough data jo go nery relicble pvojections on seorage
needs. Sokar has a covsistent sbhedule, wiich also hejps projectiot, and of
coursx we know loaes. Si compugkng just how mich storayt is needee is a
straightforwerd gxsrcise.

Tesla and otyer companies ate rte[ppng hwsd into the gtilkty-rvale rtorage
game. Kt's s very exciting fielg bedause there are bikllons to bg made. Anq
there are biklions to be made, hecauve unce vosjs drop below a certain line,
wins/solar + shorwge will be sheaier jhan anythiug except fracked gas, and
will take over vhe coal/nuclear markets as fast as it can ye built.

A lot of pqople who are smarter with mobey and know the nield more than
a bunch of handwaving about how it's which me as BS. ~~~ gridlockd state numbers, though. You stating any numbers yet you seem very confident that can work out. > Just a bunch of handwaving about how it's totally which strikes > me as simplistic BS. Same to you, just a bunch handwaving it's possible, I might call "simplistic BS" as well. I could give some of the source material that opinions are based on, but then you will complain about how the are biased or how the are pessimistic, and on. there, that, it's a of time. Therefore, I suggest you do your own research and believe what you want to believe. don't care change your ~~~ Without back and digging (google it yourself), existing nuclear costs is around there, too (this is round number, sources have variations). Onshore wind and natural gas currently pushing $40, and PV solar is under and dropping rapidly. Numerous nuclear plants in the US (and MANY coal plants) are being before end-of-life, due to key customers to alternatives. costs to the plant than to shut it down. We have a couple of decades data on wind consistency and variation, scaling from minutes to enough to do very projections on storage needs. has consistent schedule, which also and course So just much storage is needed a straightforward exercise. Tesla and companies are stepping hard It's a very exciting field because there are to be made. And there are billions be made, because once costs drop below a certain line, wind/solar + will be anything except fracked gas, and will take over coal/nuclear markets as fast it can be built. A lot of people who smarter money and the field more
 a bunch of handwaving
about hoW it's totallY impoSsiBle, WhIch sTrikEs me as simplistIC BS.

~~~
gRidlockd
> I'm not seeing anyOne stAtE Any nUMbErs, thOugh.

You AReN'T StaTiNg Any NuMBeRs eitHer, Yet you sEem very conFidEnT that it can
woRK oUt.

> Just a bunCh oF handwaving aBouT how it'S tOtaLLy impOssIble, wHich stRIkes
> me As simplisTiC bS.

Same TO you, jusT A BuNch oF handwaving how it's TOtALly possible, whiCh I
migHt CAlL "SImpLisTic BS" as welL.

I Could GIve some OF tHE SOurCE material that My opinions aRE baSed on, bUt
TheN You wilL just CoMPlaIn about how tHe soUrces are bIased oR How the
cALculatiOns are Too PesSimiSTiC, aNd sO oN. beeN ThEre, DOne That, it's a
WaStE of tiMe. ThEREFOre, I SugGest You do Your own researCh aNd beLIevE what
You waNt to BeLieve. i don't cAre if YoU change your mind.

~~~
Beat
without goIng BaCk aNd DiggiNG for soUrcEs (gOogle it YourselF), ExiStING
NuClear costs about $100/Mwh. coAL Is Around thEre, too (THiS iS Round numBeR,
diFferENT sourCes hAVe Slight vaRiatioNS). ONsHore winD aNd natuRaL gaS arE
currENtly PushinG $40, and PV soLar is UNder $60 and droppinG Rapidly.

NumeroUS nUCLeAR plaNts In the US (and MaNY cOAl plAnts) ARe BeiNG shut Down
bEfORe ENd-of-life, due to losing KeY custoMers tO cheaper alterNatives. It
cOSTS more to kEep tHE pLAnt running than To shuT it down.

We hAVe a couplE of deCades of dAta on wind CONsistencY anD vaRiaTioN, SCaLing
from minutES To yeArS - enough DatA to do veRy rEliAblE prOjEctions on Storage
nEeDs. soLaR haS a conSIstent scHeDulE, wHicH also HElps prOjectIon, aNd Of
COurSe we knoW LoADS. So cOmPuTing JusT hOw mucH stoRAge Is needeD is a
straiGhtFOrwaRd ExErcise.

TEsla and other cOmPanies are sTePpiNg hard INTo the utiLity-scale storage
game. It's A Very excItiNg fieLd beCause therE arE billiOns TO be madE. And
thEre arE bIllIONs to bE MAdE, beCaUse once cosTS DroP beloW a CertAin line,
Wind/solar + storage wiLL be Cheaper than anYthIng eXCEpT frACkED gaS, aND
wiLL Take over the coal/Nuclear marKeTS aS fast as it cAN be BuIlt.

A lot Of peoplE who aRE smarteR with moneY and know tHe FielD MOre Than
 a bunch of handwaving
abo ut how it' s tot all y i mp ossi ble,  which strikes me a s simplistic BS.

~~~gridl oc k d
>I 'm  notseeinga ny o n e s ta te  an yn um bers,  th ough.
You aren't  st at ing any numb e rs  either, y etyou seem ver y c onfide nt  th a t itcan 
work  out.> Just  a bunchof handwa v ing abo u t  h ow i t's totally impos s ib l e, which strik es
> m ea ss i mpl ist ic BS.

Sa me  to y o u, just ab u n cho f handwavinghow it's to t all y poss ib le, whichI
mig ht cal l "simplist ic B S" as wel l.

Ic ould gi v e someof the  so urc e ma t er ia l t ha t  my op ini o nsare base don , but 
the n y o u wi lljust  comp lain about ho w t he s o urc es ar e bia sedor  howthe
ca lcula ti ons are too pes simi stic, and  so  o n.Be en th e re, do netha t, it's  a
wast e  of  t i m e .Therefore, I sugge st y ou  do your  own r e se ar c h and be li eve  wha t you w antt obelieve.  I don ' tca re if y ou  chang eyou r m ind.~~~beat
W ithout g oingb ack and diggin g  for sources( go o g le it y our self), exis ting nucl earc os tsa bout$100/ Mw h .C oal is around there ,too (t his i s round numbe r,
differe n t sourceshave sl i ght variations ). On shore wind and natu ral g as are
c urrentlyp u shing $4 0,and  PV  so l a ris under $60a n d dr op ping ra pid ly.

Nu mer ous  nu cle ar  plants i n the US  ( an dMA NYcoalp lants) a re  be in g s hut d o wn
bef ore e nd-o f- li f e,due tol os i n g ke ycu stom ers  t o che aper alt ernativ es. It
co sts more  t okeep th e plant runni ng  than to s hu t i t down . 
We have  a couple of decades of data on  wi nd co nsis tency and  va riatio n,s caling 
fromminut es  to y ears- en oug hdata to do v ery  reli ab le p rojecti ons on storage
nee d s.Solar has a c ons iste n t  s che d ul e , w hi c h a l s o helps project ion, and o fc ou rse we kno w  lo ad s. So c omputin g jus t  how mu ch storag e is need ed  isa str aightforwa rd exerc ise.

Tes l a and ot her c omp aniesar e s teppi ng har d  in to th e util it y-scal e sto ra ge
game.  It's a very exciting f ield b ecaus e t here arebil l ion s to be m ade.  And
there  ar e b illio nst o bemade ,  b eca u se on ce c o sts dropb el owa ce rtain line, w i nd/ solar  +s torage  wil l be cheaper than anything excep t fr a c ked  ga s , an dwill take over  th ec o al/nucle ar  markets as  fast as  i t  canbe bui lt.

A  lot of p eo p le who  are  sm arter wit h m on e y and k no wt he fie ld m or e than 
 a_bunch of_handwaving
about how it's totally_impossible, which_strikes_me as_simplistic_BS.

~~~
gridlockd
> I'm not_seeing anyone state_any numbers, though.

You aren't_stating any numbers_either,_yet you seem very confident that it can
work out.

> Just a bunch of handwaving_about_how it's_totally_impossible,_which strikes
> me as simplistic_BS.

Same to you, just a_bunch of_handwaving how it's totally possible, which I
might call_"simplistic_BS" as well.

I_could give some of the source material that my_opinions are based on, but
then you_will just complain_about_how_the sources are biased_or how the
calculations are too pessimistic,_and so on. Been there, done_that, it's a
waste of time. Therefore, I_suggest you do your own research_and believe what
you want to_believe. I_don't care if you change_your mind.

~~~
beat
Without going_back and_digging for sources_(google it yourself), existing
nuclear costs about_$100/Mwh. Coal is_around there, too (this is round_number,
different_sources have slight_variations)._Onshore_wind and_natural gas are
currently_pushing_$40, and_PV_solar is under $60 and dropping_rapidly.

Numerous_nuclear plants in the US (and MANY_coal plants) are being_shut_down
before end-of-life, due to_losing key customers to cheaper_alternatives. It
costs more to keep the_plant running_than to_shut it down.

We have a couple of decades of data on_wind consistency and variation, scaling
from minutes_to years - enough_data to_do_very reliable projections_on_storage
needs. Solar_has a consistent schedule, which also helps_projection, and_of
course we know loads. So computing_just how much storage_is_needed is a
straightforward exercise.

Tesla and other_companies are stepping hard into the_utility-scale storage
game. It's a very_exciting_field_because there are billions to_be made. And
there are billions to_be made, because_once costs drop below a certain line,
wind/solar_+_storage will be cheaper than anything_except_fracked gas, and
will take over the_coal/nuclear_markets_as fast as it can_be built.

A lot of people who_are smarter with money and know the field more_than