This article confirms to me that AGW believers are cultists.

JohnBennetts
Look, I'm sure the output of nucelar reactors does get ramped up and down but I strongly suspect you've misunderstood what I was saying.. I was talking about load following.. you don't load follow with a nuclear reactor.. any grid typically has a mixture of plants on it and you need gas turbines to adjust to major changes in the loads. They ramp up and down very quickly.

Curmudgeon accuses me of not knowing what he is saying.

Well, neither does he.

I have worked as an engineer in the power generation industry for over 3 decades. To affirm that baseload power plant, whether nuclear or coal fired, cannot load follow is not only incorrect, it indicates that the writer does not start to understand that this is what happens all day, every day. That is the purpose of rolling reserve, by which I mean the couple of thousand megawatts of unused capacity that is present all the time in the NEM in the form of baseload units running at less than peak capacity, ready to accept additional load or to step in should some generation plant fail, eg because the wind dropped unexpectedly, or a cold front has clouded over the solar PV in a region.

The limitation is that these large units can only ramp up or down within predetermined limits. Some jurisdictions and operators choose to run some plant flat out all the time, but that is essentially a political decision and runs contra to rational market reality.

The fluctuations of load beyond the ramp rates of the base load units are generally accounted for in one of three ways: (1)By ramping up or down gas turbines, which is an option which is relatively new to Australia, because until relatively recently we had few GT's supplying the grid, (2) By ramping up or down hydro plant, eg the Snowy generators, or (3) By bringing on-line additional wind which was available but idle (Not yet common, but certain to become common). Option 3 includes ramping down by shurtting down renewables plant in order to follow declining load.

(Continued)

Curmudgeon

I tend to prefer studies from outside the respective industries. I think if Patzek was right and the coal industry knew that, they would still deny those facts because as soon as they accept a decline in coal in the near future they could throw their business model into the rubbish bin.

Which CEO would dare to do that? Our system is based on never ending growth, and a CEO questioning that and even taking action accordingly could rather give himself the bullet straightaway to avoid being sent to the mental asylum.

As for the US oil and gas boom in my opinion it really proves peak oil since conventional production is on a plateau since 2005 and that unconventional oil is desperately needed. More on that in a very interesting update from Chris Martenson:

http://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/80506/really-really-big-picture

Dear Peter,

As a religious person you would know much of faith, sadly you appear to know so little about humans, politics and the planet upon which we live.

Your lament is truly offensive. “Can't you find a way to make the CO2 just go away?”

This is an utterly odious comment. The air we breathe is CO2 and it feeds the 4.2 million biological variations on the planet that god gave us and you suggest it should just go away? Let me see, isn’t this the anti human mantra of the Club of Rome and Agenda 21?

You say that “The failure of the Doha round of climate talks points to a world gripped by paralysis; the form of paralysis that can grip us when we are in the midst of a mourning process”.

No, it is the failure of the people like you whose faith based politicized science is no longer capable of convincing those who once believed. The Doha and the 17 other rounds failed because the science was no longer convincing enough to support another Kyoto. Nor is it capable of convincing the CO2 trading markets to raise the finance or the renewable energy industry to deliver it. They are all gone Peter which just leaves the proselytizing Jesuits.

You then say “Our denial is a sign of the pain we are feeling and anticipating”

No, it’s your denial of reality; it is the pain of the faithful that is manifest here, because everything CAGW in which you believed has failed you. Belief and faith are only a problem for you and not those skeptical of your faith. We may be saddened that you feel the pain but the problem remains yours.

“So I want to invite us to get on with expressing our grief so that we can then get on with dealing with the reality that now confronts us”

Feel free to express your grief and get on with dealing with reality, hope you find it.

Meanwhile you should consider staying out of politics, pseudo-science and cults and start saving some souls

Continued, after a mandated 2 hour delay...

Option(3) is anathema to renewables afficionados because they demand preferential loading and base their economic models accordingly. They do not want to see their plant idled. Well, neither do any other generators, but that is a matter for the marketplace and the realities of occasional negative market prices for wholesale generation, as all suppliers attempt to stay on line and stable.

There is another option, called demand management. I prefer to call it unmet load. It is either business as usual or an extreme measure, according to your view of the ideal operating environment of the grid. If you are in the camp of ZCA2020 or Mark Diesendorf, then 50% unmet load during peaks is OK - "Let them suffer". And suffer, they will, because heat stress is a far greater killer in Australia than the total of floods, fires, shark, biting things and stinging things. If many frail citizens die because their air conditioning or medical equipment such as home dialysis machines are unavailable due to failure of supply, then the front pages of the daily papers will be full of headlines.

So, back to the topic.

Baseload power plants, of all description, are capable of load following, within predetermined and well known engineering limits. Affirmations to the contrary, especially those which rely on a fable such as "but only gas turbines can do the job" are incorrect.