I'm kind of stunned how much extra effort you put into being condescending over and over during a contribution whose idea is "only nuclear is reliable for base load"
Kinda shocking we have a power system then, no? :)
No it's not shocking. For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear (as part of the mix) if we want to go fully carbon-free.
I'm not explaining anything complicated here.
I don't know what you're trying to say, at all, really, because you were very condescending and now, very short.
"For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear" is false.
"For base-load 24/7 power the cleanest, by far, option w/r/t greenhouse gases is nuclear" is true.
"For base-load 24/7 power the only option is nuclear (as part of the mix)" is nigh-unparsable.
In any case, it's unreasonable to claim I thought the following was false:
For base-load 24/7 power the cleanest, by far, option w/r/t greenhouse gases is nuclear
Nothing in my comment could plausibly indicate it. In fact, my comment says: "Only real argument is "but you need _something_ for base load""
Also in any case, your tone in both cases has robbed us of a positive interaction, in favor of you getting to feel good, but really smug, for 30 seconds after your first comment.
ok I was assuming you would understand the obvious context in which nuclear power was being discussed.
And I dont feel good or smug or anything like that. I'II leave it there.
Kinda shocking we have a power system then, no? :)