If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going, I suggest we tune down the ad hominem and change to a more productive tone. I’m tired of internet discussions working the way they do, but only the participants can change that.
Funny how it’s always completely fine when people themselves go for the ad hominem, but when someone repays them in kind, we really need to tone it down.
You implied that I was ignorant twice in your comment. Once where I supposedly didn’t understand the graph I provided and the other when you assumed I didn’t know the most basic high school chemistry and tried to mansplain that.
If you keep getting into discussions that go sour, maybe you can try to find the common denominator.
If you seriously intend to keep this discussion going
So no, it’s not about whether I intend to keep this discussion going, or factual for that matter. Stick to the facts and don’t assume the other person is a total moron and see where that gets you.
capacity factors first, since I’m under the impression, that that’s the biggest source of confusion/misunderstanding here
The confusion is entirely on your side. You don’t seem to understand what these numbers mean, even after my clarification. I don’t know why your wrote a paragraph to point out how the numbers are calculated. I knew this already. It’s really basic stuff.
how things work in the status quo. Not necessarily a good indicator of the potentials of a grid with a different structure. Can we agree on that?
Unless we have a major breakthrough, solar panels and wind turbines are not going to be much more reliable in the future. So no, let’s absolutely rely on the data we have and build on that instead of tossing what we know aside and making a prediction based on wishful thinking.
But if you stop assuming you’re talking to a moron I’m willing to do my part keep the discussion more factual. So let me start by repeating this question:
Have you thought about how you would provide power on those windless winter nights after an overcast day?
Funny how it’s always completely fine when people themselves go for the ad hominem, but when someone repays them in kind, we really need to tone it down.
You implied that I was ignorant twice in your comment. Once where I supposedly didn’t understand the graph I provided and the other when you assumed I didn’t know the most basic high school chemistry and tried to mansplain that.
If you keep getting into discussions that go sour, maybe you can try to find the common denominator.
So no, it’s not about whether I intend to keep this discussion going, or factual for that matter. Stick to the facts and don’t assume the other person is a total moron and see where that gets you.
The confusion is entirely on your side. You don’t seem to understand what these numbers mean, even after my clarification. I don’t know why your wrote a paragraph to point out how the numbers are calculated. I knew this already. It’s really basic stuff.
Unless we have a major breakthrough, solar panels and wind turbines are not going to be much more reliable in the future. So no, let’s absolutely rely on the data we have and build on that instead of tossing what we know aside and making a prediction based on wishful thinking.
But if you stop assuming you’re talking to a moron I’m willing to do my part keep the discussion more factual. So let me start by repeating this question: