Open cycle gas turbines can ramp at approximately 10% of rating per minute, with a cold start delay of approximately 10 minutes.

Gas turbines can do a cold start to 100% output in less than 5 mins, usually 3 mins.
On load change they react in the range of 5 to 10 seconds. Per minute they should be able to change 30% and more.
You other numbers are more or less in the correct range, but either outdated or just "your guesses".

E.G. Most existing combined cycle gas turbines can ramp at approximately 3% of rating per minute, with a 60 minute start up delay from warm, or 3 hours from cold.
That makes no sense. Combined cycle means: it is a gas turbine, followed by an "conventional" plant.
The gas turbine part is as fast as any other gas turbine. Only the "combined cycle" part is as slow as any other coal/gas plant.
Both parts are combined, but from a grid operator point of view they are "two plants".

You can't just turn up the power output when the wind stops. It takes days to adjust. Same for goal.
No, it doesn't. Neither of both do. I suggest to red a wikipedia article about it.
The reaction time of a modern coal plant is in the range of 5% - 10% of its maximum capacity over a timeframe of 15 minutes.

You perhaps mix up cold start/warm start cycles of coal plants (and nuclear plants) with their adaptability of those plants.

Coal power plants take days to change output ... wow and how does it work that in the morning all coal plants power up and in the evening/early night power down?

I suggest you google how quickly coal plants react on demand ... ... you also need a steadier baseload component ...
Base load is the minimum amount of power you always feed into the grid, regardless of demand. You can do that with any power source you wish. Traditionally that are "special" coal/nuclear plants. Special in the way that they react very slowly to demand change, they are built like that, as they are not supposed to change. That has nothing to do with wind or solar plants.

Not even Texas can be covered with a huge enough hurricane. Cloud wise perhaps, but certainly not wind wise (forcing shut down of wind mills), hurricanes are rather small, to cover Texas you would need like 3x3 hurricanes in a 3x3 grid.

... absorb extra baseload energy ...
There is no "extra base load".
Base load is "the base" of the load or feed into the grid energy. It never really changes, it is only slightly adapted over the course of the year, as it is a bit higher in winter.
If you have like 100 plants in your fleet, about 40% - 50% (depending on your country) provide "base load", they run 24h/365d at roughly 90% capacity. Thy never change that, so there is never "extra base load" or "lack of base load".
Can't be so hard to grasp what the word "base" means.

factories near the baseload generation, keep the baseload on all the time, ...
Base load is on all the time, running the plants around 90% of capacity, hence the name "base load"

... and make fertilizer during the times when the energy is otherwise not needed?
That time does not exist ...

"Base load" is the amount of energy you _always_ feed into the grid, hence it's name.

However your idea would be suitable for "using" excess wind or solar energy.

There are plenty of countries where prostitution is legal.
Nevertheless the wemon don't become rich.

However most of the surrounding criminal szene is dried out.

Foresomeone who has so many opinions, you know quite few.
E.g. birthbed infections strictly speaking don't come from 'not washing hands'. They where prone in the time where doctors experimented/cut open corpses (in various degrees of rotting, with various invections due to which said corpses had died) . The doctors jumped right from the lab to the birth giving woman, and because of dead corpse poison etc. the women often died. Ofc, that would have been aboided with proper desinfections.
However if a random stranger with unwashed hands helps a pregnant woman to give birth, the risk of an infection is close to zero.
For millennia women gave birth without nasty high childbed deaths.

The rest of your post is equally wrong ... if corn would not self 'fertilize' as you call it, we had no harvests.

Regarding risk, you are mixing up risk with likelihood ...

Most of diabetes are nutrition problems and not genetic.

By combining eggs with sperm, the defect rate actually is extremely low, unless one of them _already_ has a defect.

How many variations of cancer do we have?

And you want to heal/prevent all of them with "gene editing"?

How retarded are you that you believe we are so retarded to believe you that?

Just nitpicking, but we did not talk about morality but about the ethics.

And obviously mindless editing and fixing a desease are two different things :)

I guess you SF collection is then pretty smal :)

So shaving and a haircut is not enough? Pity!

One thing has not much to do with the other.
Ground water is not very deep below the surface, fracking is done in far deeper depths.
So if AFTER fracking there is oil in the groundwater, it obviously comes from the fracking. Otherwise it had beed there before already

Erm, so you define efficiency by the percentage of gas that is burned? Or what is your breathing argument supposed to mean?

Stoves and other means to heat water are far far far away from you proclaimed efficiency.

Far over 50% of the heat is just wasted through the exhaust, unless you have high efficient heating systems where you might approach 75%-80%, I really doubt americans have that.

Another way to increase efficiency is to use catalytic burning, similar to fuel cells but focused on creating heat instead of electric power.