Yes, a curve
And why would that be so?
Insulation only affects the amount, not the mathematics, so it is a lower heat loss but still linear.
However I forgot/made a mistake: the bigger the temperature difference the higher is the energy flow, so outside temperature matters. So bottom line you are right it is a very slightly bent curve (the temperature difference is to low to bend it strong).
As I said: it is already used as balancing energy and reserve energy. It is _needed_ otherwise ordinary coal plants would either _always_ overproduce or underproduce.
The are good as company for every kind of energy source as they are very fast reacting plants (less than a second).
Unfortunately Germany e.g. is running out of places where you could build them _naturally_
Now we build artificial lakes on top of hills. I wonder when they start to build artificial hills even
First of all: you only need weather reports / forecasts for an hour at max, actually 15 minutes is enough as that is the reaction time of your fossil plants.
And yes, weather forecasts are surprisingly accurate, often up to seven days.
Ofc forecasts get updated and of course the update might disagree with the older forecasts very often.
Instead of insulting people I would in your case suggest to get an education. E.g. about weather, weather forecasts, power production etc.
I actually programmed the data acquisition part from various weather forecast companies to predict solar and wind production for one of the largest power companies in germany. Next try?
I can lift the stone with an electric field or an magnetic or with gravity and have no distortion in the stone
My point is that people call for the mighty god of thermo dynamics and have not a single bit of a clue about when and how to pray to him
Of course they still use them where it makes sense.
Obviously no one is changing all its production over night.
What are you arguing about?
The long term trend is going away from them for nearly everything above 4MW
No idea what flea is biting you that you make such a fuss
Nuclear waste is not the same as spent fuel.
After spent fuel is reprocessed you have waste in the same 'volume' as you have new fuel.
A cubic yard spent fuel will yield a cubic yard new fuel PLUS a cubic yard nuclear waste.
Bottom line fuel reprocessing produces more nuclear waste than not reprocessing it.
I don't get why americans always claim reprocessing would reduce waste when everyone else knows: it produces waste.
About what nation do you talk that you claim it has not enough land to produce its energy by solar alone? Or wind alone?
Andorra? Monacco? The Vatican?
Get a clue, read a book! Two off shore wind areas, like the coast of Oregon and the coast of Florida would power the whole north american continent with wind power!
A quarter of Nevada would do the same with solar power.
The grid as a whole needs to add much more storage, and long distance HVDC transmission lines, to balance intermittent power sources.
No it does not, that is a misconception. Or a
The peak plants, pumped storage and gas turbines for balancing _are already there_
The fact that you replace midrange plants and base load plants with solar and wind has only minimal effects on peakers.
The problem with Hawaii is a typical american one: the market will solve it. What a laugh!
Hawaii is a prime example for a natural constellation that could produce its whole energy needs green and at an extremely low cost for the inhabitants.
Instead the 'mythical american market' allows the utilities to earn big money on those inhabitants.
Enough mountains for pumped storage, enough heat in the ground for geo thermal plants, enough sun for PV and for solar thermal anyway and finally wind in abundance
However: for that you would need a government that actually governs instead of delegating all its 'sovereignty' to a 'market' that has no intention to do anything benefitting its participants
cost of production is relatively high (because peaker plants are expensive). and buying relatively cheap solar power instead of expensive natural gas peaker plant power
That is a misconception.
Peak plants cost the same at night as at daytime as they fulfill the exact same role: adjusting production to the _exact_ demand.
You mix up the 'general peak', the load curve going up during daytime, with the 'small fluctuations' on top of that curve.
The 'general peak' is covered by mid range load following plants, or wind or solar.
The small fluctuations on top of that are handled by peak plants, fast reacting pumped storage and gas turbines.
Ofc nevertheless you need less fast reacting plants at night, as the amplitudes and frequency of demand changes are much lower at night.
So with your example above, which I quoted, the solar power the utilities buy will replace either base load plant or midrange plant, it won't replace any peaker gas turbine, as that still is needed to adjust to someone switching on his AC or fridge or washing machine.
A wind plant does not require any 'wilderness'.
If in your case the bad guys cut all the trees, they made a mistake
I would in your case rather wonder why they did it, where the wood especially valuable? Did they want to gain new farmland?
Erm, you should read what you link.
In terms of houses on planet earth: IT DOES NOT MATTER AT ALL.
There is no measurable difference FOR YOU if I either heat my house from 18 degrees C to 20 C or from 18 C to 22 (that is double the temperature increase
If you are aware of the differences how can you claim a mere user does not need to 'hack' to get random software on an iOS device?
Sorry, don't really get what you are on.
All majour wind turnine companies are moving away from gear boxes and away from permanent magnets.
And your post here is pretty unclear what you WANT TO SAY and what is a quote from a web site.
The link you quoted clearly says: 'Wind turbines shed their gears'
First paragraph of your link: Wind turbine manufacturers are turning away from the industry-standard gearboxes and generators in a bid to boost the reliability and reduce the cost of wind power.
The following paragraphs clearly state that Siemens and GE are moving away from gear boxes toward 'direct drives'.
Further down you can read that the rotor now has the permanent magnets as opposed in older designs where the stator had them. Hence the amount of permanent magnets got reduced.
In future I hope you would argue a bit more in a: "REASON therefore EFECT" sense, as I'm pretty tired to figure the sense of your incoherent posts.
Random cut/pastes makes no argument
So, what exactly do you want to claim? GE and Siemens put more gear boxes into turbines? No they don't!
GE and Siemens need more Neobdynum (which is not rare, so what would be the point claiming it? And what would be the point if it was true? Or if it was wrong? Is see none
Any more claims I missed?
I guess the problem arises that the word abundance in english is bivalent
In german we would never call that abundance.
The total amount of something available is completely irrelevant if it is buried in million or billion times of the amount of 'ore' or water.
What counts is: how easy you can retrieve it. Actually it is easy to retrieve all those minerals from sea water. But you can not 'select' for one, so you have to refine the result. Right now it is easier to rip off african or south american people, so no industrialized nation is doing it.
Or as in true 'abundancy'
But again you made a point without a point. What do you want to say
"A car is just a big purse on wheels." -- Johanna Reynolds
