Because of Vendor Lock in, and: they are decades ahead in implementing high performance DBs on "big iron".

A hobby project SQL database is not 100 billion transactions a day DB, as much as you wish it would be.

Behind your back, the time he spent on the open ticket was billed to your company.

No way the replace a cash cow like that.

No idea about your country.
But in any western European democracy: a union is like a party.
It is bound to the votes of the members.

Or why the fark would we have unions, and union laws and all those complicated union stuff: if the leaders could rule like kings?

And I am pretty sure: your country is the same, you simply:
- hate unions
- and are to uneducated to know how they work

Yes, and on top of that: do not execute anything that comes from external sources. Like on a Mac.

You do not know what the unions advised them.

You simply hate unions and have no clue how unions work in general, and unfortunately more painful: in your country.

So nobody local "won". Real economics work like that.
In your farked up country. There should not be any "real economics" around jobs. It is a basic human right to have a job that pays you a living.

Everyone using "baseload" (here on /.) is using it wrong.

No point in reading your link, as the link is most likely correct, and YOU or the other wrong people have English language comprehension problems.

Hint a power plant with "capacity factor 40%" can be a base load plant, and a plant with 95% CF can be a load following plant - oops.

Oh, just to confirm, your link is correct: The base load[2] (also baseload) is the minimum level of demand on an electrical grid over a span of time, for example, one week.

You see ... and now explain me your understanding why a country that has 70% nukes suddenly is better off in providing baseload versus a country that only has 40% nukes :P

Good luck.

Perhaps you should look up what "WASTE" is.

There is no reactor in the world that can "burn" fission products, aka "WASTE".

Stupid brainwashed Americans.

They can also run on thorium.
Unlikely. Thorium has to be bread into Uranium before fission. I do not think a CANDU reactor can do that (without upgrade or modification).

And it still does not explode, catch fire when exposed to oxygen ... because: it is a salt, and not the pure element. Most "liquid salt" things: are NaCl :P

The points of my parents where about:
- clouds
- latitude

Not about snow or earth tilt.

I do not promote "Solar for Canada".

I answer to posts that are: factually wrong!

Every 8h a day job is supposed to feed you. AND your family.

Stupid farking american asshole.

Well,
then we have different news sources.
1986 when the even happened: it was classified as a wild graphite fire that resulted in the explosion of a huge pile of graphite.

If you think there was some steam involved, up to you.

Damn, you just love getting shit wrong. They were hydrogen explosions.
Correct. As I posted before, it was hydrogene. Your steam bullshit made me type wrong.

It is not called a steam explosion when the graphite moderator block explodes in fire. Obviously in such an explosion a lot of steam from the cooling system is created.

What might have melted down, was remains of the reactor: after most of the inside got spread over all the place.

If we say: "the reactor melted down" we consider it the main incident. Not an aftermath of the main catastrophe.

No one cares if there was enough left of the reactor or fuel that there could melt down something after it exploded.

Fukushima "melted down" after power loss, due to the tsunami, and steam explosions wrecking the reactor vessels ... however: the main disaster were the melt downs.

Big difference. Hence Chernobyl was a gigantic catastrophe, and Fukishima only polluted 1/3rd of Japan, lightly (arguable).

That implies you only have exceptional thick clouds, or call thin clouds not cloudy.

Your math makes sense, but with current prices - unless you have idiotic Trump tariffs - that would be a roughly $20k - 30k investment. Probably still to expensive right now ... for your use case.

Point is: you are over dramatic about the loss during clouds. Perhaps you have odd, age old panels?

We are talking about: production over the day, in kWh. During clouds the panels do not have the close to 100% peek, but produce "all day" 50% to 80% ... depending on the thickness of the clouds.

That is not what "baseload" means. I suggest to read up the term, contemplate, and comprehend it.

To many words mixed into one post, from which you do not know what they mean.
I suggest to start looking up: baseload. Then continue with capacity factor.
And then: grasp what they actually mean.

For example a German gas turbine only has a capacity factor of perhaps 15% .... why?