Reply by Anthony William Sloman●November 15, 20212021-11-15
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 5:41:24 PM UTC+11, Tom Seim wrote:
> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 10:11:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:08:15 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> > > > > On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
> > > > > > On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > > >> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> > > > > >>> https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> That's so embarrassing.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
> > > > > >> they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
> > > > > >> nuclear power, and they've never had to guts to admit that it was a
> > > > > >> silly idea.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > > France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
> > > > > > 44. That's pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and a few.
> > >
> > > > Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don't involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
> > > >
> > > > > > So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho".
> > > >
> > > > Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.
> > > >
> > > > > > Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
> > > >
> > > > As you don't seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren't the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.
> > > > >
> > > > > Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before "they" get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make the clean energy we need.
> > > >
> > > > It isn't. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it isn't remotely true.
> > > >
> > > > > Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric power. Like solar power, it isn't there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you've got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it's easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.
> > > >
> > > > Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there's a push to get householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don't like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don't pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.
> > >
> > > Hey Sloman, what is "stupidly macho" are the comments you are making! Germany is BUYING a lot of France's nuclear-generated power after they "stupidly" shut down their own reactors.
> >
> > So what. It is still there to be bought (though the French had to shut down nearly half of their nuclear reactors a few years ago when cracks in some of the steel castings inside the reactors came to light). Germany shutting down it's nuclear reactors was bit quixotic it didn't make them much safer - the bulk of the nuclear waste still has to be disposed of sometime, but a shut-down nuclear reactor is less likely to do a Fukushima on you, and German public opinion hadn't reacted well to that.
>
> SO WHAT??? It is a repudiation of the ENTIRE stupid idea of a total move away from fossil fuels, that's what.
Whatever else istmight be, it isn't a "repudiation". Germany might conceivably have repudiated the original decision - but they didn't - and you'd have to show that they had reversed it before you could say that.
You might claim that it was a demonstration that it was an ill-judged choice, but that is something different.
There's nothing stupid about stopping using fossil fuels - it's not phasing them out rapidly which is stupid.
> Renewables are unreliable, but can SUPPLEMENT other energy sources. They will NEVER be the ONLY power source (unless you want society as we know it to collapse).
Twaddle. Renewables aren't dispatchable, but if you had enough pumped and battery storage they could supply all the power we need. That could mean a lot of storage.
Australian venture capitalists are getting excited about using huge solar farms in remote areas to generate electrolytic hydrogen, which they will then liquify and put into tankers and ship off to Japan and South Korea. It's exactly the same business model as putting oil into tankers, and it isn't difficult to store months worth of power generation. The catch is that batteries and pumped storage give back about 85% of the energy you put in, and burning liquid hydrogen only gives you back about 25% of the energy you put in to make it.
Keeping the grid going over a couple of cloudy windless days would be expensive, and but having that much liquid hydrogen on tap wouldn't be a problem. Apparently you can burn it in the regular gas turbines which we now use to cover peak loads.
> Now we know exactly how STUPID you are! The Brits, and Europe, was BECALMED: so you have a plan that will ENSURE that the wind keeps blowing in OZ.
Oz is a big country - about as big as the continental US at about 7.7 million km^2. Europe is bigger at 10.2 million km^2. Australia typically accommodates two weather systems at once - they take a couple of days to move across the country from west to east, so the country as a whole is never "becalmed".
> This must come right after you figure out how to create fusion energy.
That's easy. There's been a fusion reactor running at the centre of the solar system for several billion years now.
> > You don't seem to have a clue about this subject either.
> Yet you DO - NOT!!!
Tom Seim has an exaggerated idea of his own competence, and thinks that anybody who doesn't agree with him has to be wrong. This is wishful thinking.
<snipped more wishful thinking>
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by Tom Seim●November 15, 20212021-11-15
On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 10:11:40 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:08:15 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> > > > On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
> > > > > On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > > >> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> > > > >>> https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That's so embarrassing.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
> > > > >> they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
> > > > >> nuclear power, and they've never had to guts to admit that it was a
> > > > >> silly idea.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.
> > > > >>
> > > > > France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
> > > > > 44. That's pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and a few.
> >
> > > Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don't involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
> > >
> > > > > So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho".
> > >
> > > Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.
> > >
> > > > > Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
> > >
> > > As you don't seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren't the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.
> > > >
> > > > Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before "they" get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make the clean energy we need.
> > >
> > > It isn't. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it isn't remotely true.
> > >
> > > > Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.
> > >
> > > There's nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric power. Like solar power, it isn't there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you've got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it's easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.
> > >
> > > Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there's a push to get householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don't like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don't pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.
> >
> > Hey SNIPPERMAN, what is "stupidly macho" are the comments you are making! Germany is BUYING a lot of France's nuclear-generated power after they "stupidly" shut down their own reactors.
>
> So what. It is still there to be bought (though the French had to shut down nearly half of their nuclear reactors a few years ago when cracks in some of the steel castings inside the reactors came to light). Germany shutting down it's nuclear reactors was bit quixotic it didn't make them much safer - the bulk of the nuclear waste still has to be disposed of sometime, but a shut-down nuclear reactor is less likely to do a Fukushima on you, and German public opinion hadn't reacted well to that.
SO WHAT??? It is a repudiation of the ENTIRE stupid idea of a total move away from fossil fuels, that's what SNIPPERMAN. Renewables are unreliable, but can SUPPLEMENT other energy sources. They will NEVER be the ONLY power source (unless you want society as we know it to collapse).
Oh, you are SMARTER than the Brits when it comes to renewables. Now we know exactly how STUPID you are! The Brits, and Europe, was BECALMED: so you have a plan that will ENSURE that the wind keeps blowing in OZ. This must come right after you figure out how to create fusion energy.
>
> You don't seem to have a clue about this subject either.
Yet you DO - NOT!!!
>The OZ idiot, SNIPPERMAN
Reply by Rick C●November 15, 20212021-11-15
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 2:11:40 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
It's odd that people get so wound up about the idea of turning off carbon emitting plants when the sun shines or the wind blows reducing the carbon output hugely. It's as if the cost of not using fossil fuels was too great. My understanding is the bulk of the cost of electricity from fossil fuels is the cost of the fuel itself. So turn all the fossil fuel plants into peaking generators to provide power when all other means are inactive including the various electrical storage facilities are exhausted. Literally tons of carbon will not be emitted and most likely the cost of electricity will drop overall. Going forward I don't see any better method. In the US we will use nuclear until the plants are no longer safe. Eventually it will just be too expensive to provide any new nuclear generation.
This has all been covered here before. People just don't want to learn new facts and ideas.
--
Rick C.
-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by Anthony William Sloman●November 15, 20212021-11-15
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:09:40 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 12:22:30 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >> On 11/13/2021 14:58, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wr
> > ote:
> >> >> On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
> >> >>> On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >> >>>> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> >
> >> >>>>> https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclea
> > r-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> That's so embarrassing.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
> >
> >> >>>> they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
> >
> >> >>>> nuclear power, and they've never had to guts to admit that it was a
> >
> >> >>>> silly idea.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
> >> >>> 44. That's pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and a few.
> >> >
> >> > Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don't involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
> >> >
> >> >>> So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho".
> >> >
> >> > Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real
> > cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.
> >> >
> >> Nuclear power is actually cheaper than any other available today.
> >>
> >> Once anti-nuclear activists are shown the figures they start babbling
> >> about waste.
> >
> >> >>> Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
> >> >
> >> > As you don't seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren't the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.
> >> >>
> >> >> Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before "they"
> >> >> get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
> >> >> the clean energy we need.
> >> >
> >> > It isn't. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but
> > it isn't remotely true.
> >>
> >> Of course it is. The antinuclear propaganda has been denying that for de cades and it has worked on the general public, that's all.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
> >
> > It might have been true a while back, but solar photovoltaic - $68 per MWhr - on-shore wind turbines $53 per MWhr - and off-shore wind turbines - $115 per MWhr - now undercut nuclear $155 per MWhr.
> >
> > Wind and photovoltaic are benefiting from economies of scale, and will get even cheaper when the generating gear is produced in even higher volume.
> >
> > Nuclear plants still aren't mass-produced, and it seems unlikely that they ever will be. There simply hasn't been enough money made out of nuclear power plants to fund a lot of pro-nuclear propaganda - certainly nothing on the scale of the climate change denial propaganda effort. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
> >
> > have supplied enough worrying events to make anti-nuclear propaganda unnecessary.
> >
> >> >> Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now t
> > he public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.
> >> >
> >> > There's nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric
> > power. Like solar power, it isn't there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you've got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it's easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.
> >> >
> >> > Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there's a push to get
> > householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don't like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don't pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.
> >>
> >> Toying with windmills and solar will be "practical" only as long as the
> > subsidies last.
> >
> > They got dumped quite a while ago.
> >
> >> They may even be practical in some areas where there is no winter to live
> > through; areas where you can survive without electricity at all, that is.
> >
> > Place like Denmark rely more on wind-farms than solar farms. The sun still shines in winter, but not all that long every day when you get close to the Arctic circle. The wind mostly keeps on blowing. You do need long high-voltage DC links to move power around over distances longer than the size of a typical weather system, but we are getting more of them.
> >
> > In Australia, which is more or less bisected by the tropic of Capricorn ( latitude 23.4394 degrees south of the Equator) the government can't get the utility companies to invest in anything except solar farms and wind farms. Anything else is too expensive. The utility companies are starting to invest in grid-scale storage - it isn't urgent yet because there's still a lot of old fossil fueled generating plant around, which can be run up to cover occasional shortfalls when the spot price goes up.
> >
> > https://www.aemc.gov.au/energy-system/electricity/electricity-market/spot-and-contract-markets
> >
> > The auction was for half-hour chunks - much to the disgust of the economists who designed the system, who wanted ten minute chunks - but it is supposed to have moved to five minute chunks this year.
<snipped the usual drivel>
> Being on the opposite side of DLUNU and Bill is a good thing...
In this case it means that John Doe has got it wrong again. as he usually does.He tries to make a virtue of being wrong-headed, but it is a bit obviously a try-on.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by Anthony William Sloman●November 15, 20212021-11-15
On Monday, November 15, 2021 at 4:08:15 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> > > On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
> > > > On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > >> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> > > >>> https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's so embarrassing.
> > > >>
> > > >> France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
> > > >> they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
> > > >> nuclear power, and they've never had to guts to admit that it was a
> > > >> silly idea.
> > > >>
> > > >> John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.
> > > >>
> > > > France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
> > > > 44. That's pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and a few.
>
> > Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don't involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
> >
> > > > So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho".
> >
> > Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.
> >
> > > > Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
> >
> > As you don't seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren't the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.
> > >
> > > Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before "they" get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make the clean energy we need.
> >
> > It isn't. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it isn't remotely true.
> >
> > > Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.
> >
> > There's nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric power. Like solar power, it isn't there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you've got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it's easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.
> >
> > Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there's a push to get householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don't like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don't pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.
>
> Hey Sloman, what is "stupidly macho" are the comments you are making! Germany is BUYING a lot of France's nuclear-generated power after they "stupidly" shut down their own reactors.
So what. It is still there to be bought (though the French had to shut down nearly half of their nuclear reactors a few years ago when cracks in some of the steel castings inside the reactors came to light). Germany shutting down it's nuclear reactors was bit quixotic it didn't make them much safer - the bulk of the nuclear waste still has to be disposed of sometime, but a shut-down nuclear reactor is less likely to do a Fukushima on you, and German public opinion hadn't reacted well to that.
The UK does lots of stuff wrong. Coal isn't anybody's favourite source - gas is marginally cleaner and lot easier to turn up and down as demand varies.
You don't seem to have a clue about this subject either.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by Edward Hernandez●November 15, 20212021-11-15
The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:
> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:
> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...
And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:09:34 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smsq2e$dj6$5@dont-email.me>.
This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it's own rules that it uses to troll other posters.
jYMU4QgFsiaA
Reply by Edward Hernandez●November 15, 20212021-11-15
The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:
> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:
> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...
And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:03:37 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smspn9$dj6$3@dont-email.me>.
Q+OzOgvJ5ZGu
Reply by Edward Hernandez●November 15, 20212021-11-15
The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:
> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:
> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...
And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Mon, 15 Nov 2021 05:00:25 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <smsph9$dj6$2@dont-email.me>.
ddI59TLzFz+9
Reply by John Doe●November 15, 20212021-11-15
"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman)
"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so" (Bozo paraphrased)
Being on the opposite side of Always Wrong and Bozo Bill is a good thing...
--
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:15c5:: with SMTP id d5mr17914701qty.227.1636812836729; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 06:13:56 -0800 (PST)
> X-Received: by 2002:a25:37cb:: with SMTP id e194mr24160644yba.449.1636812836513; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 06:13:56 -0800 (PST)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 06:13:56 -0800 (PST)
> In-Reply-To: <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=203.213.69.109; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.213.69.109
> References: <smi0i0$nun$1@dont-email.me> <d31d2570-4f15-46d9-81b3-94231228c9aen@googlegroups.com> <7-6dnYbJusEpGxL8nZ2dnUU78RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smo8v9$skm$1@dont-email.me> <e9268764-86e6-4a06-9e7d-aabbed8dc0f6n@googlegroups.com> <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <6f2538b6-29de-4350-8970-4247e8ccb996n@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: OT: France building more nuclear reactors
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 14:13:56 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:652332
>
> On Sunday, November 14, 2021 at 12:22:30 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>> On 11/13/2021 14:58, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wr
> ote:
>> >> On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
>> >>> On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>> >>>> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
>
>> >>>>> https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclea
> r-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> That's so embarrassing.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
>
>> >>>> they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
>
>> >>>> nuclear power, and they've never had to guts to admit that it was a
>
>> >>>> silly idea.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.
>> >>>>
>> >>> France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ran
> ks
>> >>> 44. That's pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes a
> nd
>> >>> a few.
>> >
>> > Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There
> are quite a few ways of generating energy that don't involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
>> >
>> >>> So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho".
>> >
>> > Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real
> cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.
>> >
>> Nuclear power is actually cheaper than any other available today.
>> Once anti-nuclear activists are shown the figures they start babbling
>> about waste.
>> >>> Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2
>
>> >>> rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
>> >
>> > As you don;t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren't the only
> way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.
>> >>
>> >> Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before "they"
>> >> get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
>> >> the clean energy we need.
>> >
>> > It isn't. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but
> it isn't remotely true.
>>
>> Of course it is. The antinuclear propaganda has been denying that for de
> cades and it has worked on the general public, that's all.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_nuclear_power_plants#/media/File:3-Learning-curves-for-electricity-prices.png
>
> It might have been true a while back, but solar photovoltaic - $68 per MWhr - on-shore wind turbines $53 per MWhr - and off-shore wind turbines - $115 per MWhr - now undercut nuclear $155 per MWhr.
>
> Wind and photovoltaic are benefiting from economies of scale, and will get even cheaper when the generating gear is produced in even higher volume.
>
> Nuclear plants still aren't mass-produced, and it seems unlikely that they ever will be. There simply hasn't been enough money made out of nuclear power plants to fund a lot of pro-nuclear propaganda - certainly nothing on the scale of the climate change denial propaganda effort. Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
>
> have supplied enough worrying events to make anti-nuclear propaganda unnecessary.
>
>> >> Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now t
> he public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.
>> >
>> > There's nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric
> power. Like solar power, it isn't there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you've got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it's easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.
>> >
>> > Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there's a push to get
> householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don't like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don't pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.
>>
>> Toying with windmills and solar will be "practical" only as long as the
> subsidies last.
>
> They got dumped quite a while ago.
>
>> They may even be practical in some areas where there is no winter to live
> through; areas where you can survive without electricity at all, that is.
>
> Place like Denmark rely more on wind-farms than solar farms. The sun still shines in winter, but not all that long every day when you get close to the Arctic circle. The wind mostly keeps on blowing. You do need long high-voltage DC links to move power around over distances longer than the size of a typical weather system, but we are getting more of them.
>
> In Australia, which is more or less bisected by the tropic of Capricorn ( latitude 23.4394 degrees south of the Equator) and the government can't get the utility companies to invest in anything except solar farms and wind farms. Anything else is too expensive. The utility companies are starting to invest in grid-scale storage - it isn't urgent yet because there's still a lot of old fossil fueled generating plant around, which can be run up to cover occasional shortfalls when the spot price goes up.
>
> https://www.aemc.gov.au/energy-system/electricity/electricity-market/spot-and-contract-markets
>
> The auction was for half-hour chunks - much to the disgust of the economists who designed the system, who wanted ten minute chunks - but it is supposed to have moved to five minute chunks this year.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
>
>
Reply by Flyguy●November 15, 20212021-11-15
On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> > On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
> > > On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
> > >>> https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.
> > >>>
> > >>> That's so embarrassing.
> > >>
> > >> France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
> > >> they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
> > >> nuclear power, and they've never had to guts to admit that it was a
> > >> silly idea.
> > >>
> > >> John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.
> > >>
> > > France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
> > > 44. That's pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and
> > > a few.
> Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don't involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
> > > So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho".
> Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.
> > > Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2
> > > rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
> As you don;t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren't the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.
> >
> > Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before "they"
> > get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
> > the clean energy we need.
> It isn't. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it isn't remotely true.
> > Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.
> There's nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric power. Like solar power, it isn't there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you've got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it's easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.
>
> Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there's a push to get householders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-night - the people who run the grid don't like having to buy in power from household solar cells, and don't pay much for it. In the longer term, electric cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.
>
> --
> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney