A proper cure for hair loss. Sure you can take finasteride, but its super bad for males on a hormonal level, and even with its side effects millions of males take it, myself being one of them.

I'd give you a response but based on your asshole of an attitude it's not worth it.

Next time you want to have a civil discussion, try not being a dick - a fellow engineer.

>Baseload is a term used by laypeople that don't understand the grid.
>
>All it means is that you want to have your power system producing enough power to meet the minimum load over a unit of time.

You clearly didn't read the literal definition of base load being the minimum level of demand. Its not a layman term, its a literal grid term. But nice try.

​

>You people act like it's a magical thing that has to come from a particular source.

No, it doesn't HAVE to come from a particular source, but if the minimum isn't met, we have a fucking problem. That's literally why I mentioned solar/wind + storage AS A BASE LOAD, because yes, its possible to use them as a base load, but its absolutely not economically feasible right now compared to a natural gas plant. Hopefully in the future that will change.

​

>What you want is dispatchable power. Then it doesn't fucking matter.
>
>Wind and solar aren't dispatchable, but then, neither is nuke.

Capacity factor of nuclear plants is literally the highest out of EVERY energy source. What are you smoking.

​

>Instead, have geographically distributed renewables and the transmission assets to move that power to where the demand is. Make enough power that you are always overshooting demand. Take the excess power and do something useful with it, like desalinization, producing fertilizer, whatever useful shit you can. You only need a small amount of dispatchable power to make up any anomalous dips in production met by pumped water, hydropower, batteries, flywheels, geothermal, or other non-emitting dispatchable power sources. You can also do load shedding and many other operations that stabilize the grid.

You're not wrong, and the US is absolutely improving its interconnects to move around energy to where demand is needed, but to build out ALL of your grid with renewables would require an absolutely stupid amount of storage and renewables overbuild, which is astronomically more expensive than a natural gas plant at the current time.

I'm a big proponent of hydrogen storage along with vanadium flow batteries, but at the current time they are too expensive as a base load option versus throwing up a natural gas plant. That most likely will change in the future, but for the next decade, its most likely not economically feasible. Hopefully that changes but I'm pessimistic.

​

>Baseload is just a nonsense word that laypeople use because they heard it on a documentary somewhere and they think it makes them sound smart.
>
>solar just isn't there yet in terms of cost feasibility,
>
>Literally every electric utility in the country disagrees with you, so there's that.

Solar + storage. Way to take something out of context.

>You really do sound like a fossil fuel shill.

And you sound like you don't understand basic economics. What a shame. Let me know when they start replacing coal plants with solar/wind + battery storage instead of natural gas, and then we can relook at this discussion.

Also, FYI, those LCOE numbers were with tax credits applied.

and that's a good thing! But as I said originally, base load electricity generation for renewables requires storage, of which in the EIA data is 17%. So 17% of all new possible base load generation is battery storage, and 14% is natural gas.

Right now, 39% of all electricity generation in the states is through natural gas, and I can guarantee they won't be replacing those plants with solar/wind+battery storage anytime soon, because its not economically feasible to do so.

Since 2011, 121 coal fired plants have converted to natural gas, because that's the most economical and logical thing to do. A replacement to solar/wind + battery storage would be more capitally intensive and have a longer payback period.

Look I'm all in favor of getting rid of coal, but if you're going to replace it with anything due to cost increases, its going to be natural gas not solar/wind + storage.

The EIA LCOE 2022 report pins the LCOE of a combined cycle natural gas plant at $39.94, Wind at $40.23, Solar at $33.83, and battery storage at a whopping $128.55.

There is not a chance in hell a coal operator is going to look at those economics and convert to a solar/wind + battery storage setup vs. natural gas, especially with the ability to reuse the supercritical boiler for the steam turbine.

I mentioned nuclear as a base loads because moving forward, if the development of SMR's go well there is a possibility they could become economical for base load applications in the future. At the current time, best base solution is hydro if its available and if not natural gas.

You still need a base load. Storage technology for wind and solar just isn't there yet in terms of cost feasibility, so that leaves natural gas or nuclear as base loads.

Yeah what the hell happened. I like coming here to read articles about advancements in AI, not quasi religious zealots picketing for the end of the mankind.

My personal opinion: There will be blood.

As AI begins to replace jobs, unemployment will begin to rise assuming new jobs aren't created when old jobs are replaced. This will take many years to manifest, beginning with basic jobs like long haul transport and admin services, and compounding over years towards more complicated jobs like the trades.

Now the question becomes, where is the turning point where unemployment is so high that the government has to step in to prevent a societal collapse? 10%? 20%? 50%? Who knows, but violence always comes before government intervention.

There will be riots long before the conversation even begins about UBI, the government in general is never proactive, they are always reactive. This means they will wait till the country is on the verge of collapse before even beginning to consider talking to the corporations about UBI payments, and even then the process could take years to complete.

This argument all hinges on the idea that more jobs will be lost then created due to AI labor displacement, which to be completely honest is very difficult to forecast. If 3.2 million trucks lose their jobs in the states, where do they go? Is there a new industry or roles created due to the AI trucker displacement? Who knows.