Texas power prices briefly soar to $9,000/MWh as heat wave bakes state

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 5:59:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:01:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power.  Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%.  Those are the facts.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Actually, it is 19% and declining.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 19% vs what I said, 20%. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  What a nit to pick, stupid lib.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stupid lib.  The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world. 
> > > > 
> > > > What fifty nuclear plants?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ask your butt buddy, DL.  He can use Google and found them.
> > 
> > He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else.
> 
> 
> ROFL!  I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in
> other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him
> to say I'm wrong, because I said 50? 

You said fifty power reactors, DL said 53 reactors in total, including an unspecified number of research reactors, and I pointed out that reactors used to produce medical isotopes might show up in such a list too.

What that reveals is that you don't appreciate that there is more than one kind of nuclear reactor, which devalues your under-informed opinion even further.

You'd have looked less like an idiot if you had taken that point on board.

> ROFL.  You're amazing. Fifty or
> fifty three, who the hell cares, except a troll like you.  My point is
> 100% correct.

In fact you've made it clear that you have read some half-baked claim somewhere, and have been recycling it as an indisputable fact ever since.

You are 100% twit.
 
> And DL didn't say "quite a few' were research, he said some.  So,
> let's recap your lying lib methods  I said there were
> 50 nuclear power reactors currently under construction and 50 more in the
> planning stages.  DL claims that I'm wrong, it's actually 53, as if that
> nit matters. 

"Some" and "a few" aren't specific enough to be worth differentiating.

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a distinction that you seem to recognise.

> Now, IDK what he added beyond the fifty POWER reactors,
> neither do you and I don't care.

But you should.

> But now you take his increased number which may include three research reactors on top of the 50 POWER reactors, and try to use that to claim that I'm wrong.

Why three? "Some" could definitely be more than three. "A few" might not be.

Your "fifty" power reactors is a suspiciously round number and the additional fifty planned reactors is even more obviously rounded off.

> Your lying, shystering lib methods never stop.

Your brainless promotion of other people's rhetoric is earning you the contempt you deserve. Complaining about being jeered at may make you happier, but no less contemptible.

> One more time.  There are 50 nuclear power plants under construction
> worldwide, with 50 more in the planning stages showing that contrary
> to your stupid claims, they are being built.    All your BS can't
> change that.

Trader4 demonstrates his faith in argument by persistent reiteration. Asserting what you claim to be facts when you won't - and probably can't - provide links to some source with any credibility at all isn't going to get anybody to take you seriously. At this point any link that you did provide would become suspect just because you'd espoused it.

> > You are relying on sloppy second hand information that has gotten even less reliable once it's passed through your feeble excuse for comprehension.
> 
> ROFL.  You're the dope that can't use Google and asks others to do 
> it for you.

Since I clearly can use Google, and have done in this thread, this is obvious nonsense.  What I want is for you to reveal the source of your misapprehensions.

I know I can do Google searches that work. I'm getting progressively more confident that you can't. 

> And then talk about information sources, you just used
> data in a post from DL as a source!   And even that wasn't good enough,
> you had to lie about what he posted on top of that.

Really? It clearly didn't mean to me what you decided that it meant to you - you still haven't taken on board the fact that research reactors aren't power reactors, and that reactors that make medical isotopes might not be either. 

> > I'm not going to take you seriously enough even to look.
> 
> Which explains how stupid libs like you stay so ignorant. 

We aren't ignorant, We just don't share your favourite delusions.

You may want to see it as ignorance, but in fact we are well aware of the false "facts" twits like you chose to believe, and have skills - which you lack - which enable us to include them in our rather more complete views of the world (which does include the possibility that we can get stuff wrong from time to time, which people like you, krw and Cursitor Doom seem to exclude).

> You've made about 5 posts on this now, but you won't spend one minute
> to find out the truth.

I know what you think is "the truth". Pity about that. 

> Thanks for representing for the libs!

Thanks for representing the gullible idiots. You make the species look even more contemptible with every brainlessly repetitious post.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney 

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 5:59:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:01:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power.  Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%.  Those are the facts.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > Actually, it is 19% and declining.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 19% vs what I said, 20%. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >  What a nit to pick, stupid lib.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > How?
> > > > > 
> > > > > Stupid lib.  The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world. 
> > > > 
> > > > What fifty nuclear plants?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Ask your butt buddy, DL.  He can use Google and found them.
> > 
> > He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else. 
> 
> ROFL!  I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in
> other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him
> to say I'm wrong, because I said 50?   ROFL.  You're amazing. Fifty or
> fifty three, who the hell cares, except a troll like you.  My point is
> 100% correct.

Your point is 100% wishful thinking. If you had a little more sense you might be aware of the fact.

Fifty reactors was always a suspiciously round number. Fifty more being planned even more so.
 
> And DL didn't say "quite a few' were research, he said some.  So,
> let's recap your lying lib methods  I said there were
> 50 nuclear power reactors currently under construction and 50 more in the
> planning stages.  DL claims that I'm wrong, it's actually 53, as if that
> nit matters.  Now, IDK what he added beyond the fifty POWER reactors,
> neither do you and I don't care.  But now you take his increased
> number which may include three research reactors on top of the 50
> POWER reactors, and try to use that to claim that I'm wrong.

You want to imagine that his 53 planned reactors include exactly three research reactors? No surprise there. You probably are wrong - and your habit of jumping to convenient conclusions has been exposed one more time.

<snipped the usual drivel>

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:09:35 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > 
> > > BS.  If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather
> > > calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out
> > > on nuclear right now.  Nuclear generates 20% of US power.  Solar, after
> > > all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%.  Those are the 
> > > facts.
> > 
> > Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability.  But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading.  Nuclear has the same problem.  Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons. 
> 
> That's not true and MIT says so.  In fact they say they are good for being
> able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind.  You know, like when
> clouds show up?
> 
> http://news.mit.edu/2018/flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-more-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid-0425
> 
> "Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service."
>
> > They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle.  
> 
> Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base load.

Bit it's expensive, so why would we?

> What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like when a cloud
> shows up.

So you need power storage, and an extended grid so that clouds showing up in one place will be compensated by clouds going away from another.

That means high voltage DC links - geographic averaging only works well over long distances.

> > So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total energy production is at face value fallacious.
> 
> BS.  MIT says so. 

MIT says that reactors can be run at lower full output. They don't go into the economics of running a very expensive (lots of invested capital) nuclear reactor at less than full power for a lot of the time.

> And even if it were true, we could use nuclear for
> a lot more than 20%.  And shouldn't we?  The climate change folks say
> the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does that in a big
> and real way.   After two decades of talk and actually putting up a
> lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power comes from solar.
> 
> >  We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity.  I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1.  Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline.  But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%.  Just very expensive. 

As the MIT study says, you can use control rods to adjust the actual amount of fission going on in the reactor. Not all neutron captures lead to immediate fission, and consequent immediate neutron emissions. The half-lives of the eventual neutron emitters are around several minutes (which is what makes fission reactors controllable) the and the moderators in the pile slow down fast neutrons (about 20,000 km/sec) to about 2.7km/sec making them more likely to be captured, so rapid adjustment of the heat coming out isn't an option.

> > So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve the carbon problem with it. 
> 
> Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far more
> serious limitations.  And at 1.6% of power from solar after all the
> harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher electric
> bills, it sure hasn't done much.

This is a remarkably fatuous non-argument, even by Trader4's abysmally low standards.

Solar and wind now supply 8% of the US electricity demand, and the proportion is rising rapidly.

Trader4 doesn't seem to be aware of the consequences of economies of scale.

Anything that you can mass produce gets cheaper if you can produce it in higher volume. Typically a factor of ten scale up in production volume halves the unit price.

This has happened twice with solar cells in recent years. Germany invested a lot in higher volume production about twenty years ago, and China trumped them about a decade later. The Chinese effort made solar cells cheap enough that they could compete with conventional power generation in favourable locations, and they now account for 1% of global electricity production, and the proportion is rising rapidly.

By the time the proportion hits 10% the unit price of solar cells will have halved again, and they will be competitive power sources pretty much anywhere.

Wind turbines are also getting cheaper, but a lot of their cost is the tower that that supports the blades and the generator, so the advantages of mass production aren't quite as dramatic.

The world is changing rapidly and Trader4 can't see it.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 4:09:35 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > 
> > > BS.  If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather
> > > calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out
> > > on nuclear right now.  Nuclear generates 20% of US power.  Solar, after
> > > all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%.  Those are the facts.
> > 
> > Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability.  But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading.  Nuclear has the same problem.  Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons. 
> 
> That's not true and MIT says so.  In fact they say they are good for being
> able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind.  You know, like when
> clouds show up?
> 
> http://news.mit.edu/2018/flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-more-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid-0425
> 
> Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle.  
> 
> Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base load.
> What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like when a cloud
> shows up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total energy production is at face value fallacious.
> 
> BS.  MIT says so.  And even if it were true, we could use nuclear for
> a lot more than 20%.  And shouldn't we?  The climate change folks say
> the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does that in a big
> and real way.   After two decades of talk and actually putting up a
> lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power comes from solar.

You didn't even read what I wrote.  MIT is talking about the technical limitations of nuclear reactors.  I said the "economic" issues because they are so expensive they have to be run flat out to be affordable.  Gas plants are very inexpensive to build and the lion's share of the cost in running them is the fuel.  Stop running them and your fuel cost goes to zero.  So for variable load you use gas, for base load you use nuclear... if it is still affordable even then.  No one has to spend many billions of dollars or take a decade to build a gas power plant or any other type either.  Just nuclear. 


>   We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity.  I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1.  Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline.  But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%.  Just very expensive. 
> > 
> > So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve the carbon problem with it. 
> 
> Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far more
> serious limitations.  And at 1.6% of power from solar after all the
> harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher electric
> bills, it sure hasn't done much.

You still don't get it.  The issue with solar and wind is variability in supply which can be mitigated with storage.  I suppose you can mitigate the inflexibility of nuclear with storage too, but not the high price tag. 

-- 

  Rick C.

  -+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
  -+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:33f5171e-0833-484d-9a84-393f426db2b4@googlegroups.com: 

> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie
>> wrote: 
>> > 
>> > BS.  If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating
>> > weather calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be
>> > going all out on nuclear right now.  Nuclear generates 20% of
>> > US power.  Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing,
>> > generates 1.6%.  Those are the f 
> acts.
>> 
>> Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with
>> the lack o 
> f reliability of availability.  But the real issue is the poor
> match between availability and the loading.  Nuclear has the same
> problem.  Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of
> technical reasons for economic reasons. 
> 
> That's not true and MIT says so.  In fact they say they are good
> for being able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind.  You
> know, like when clouds show up?
> 
> http://news.mit.edu/2018/flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-mo
> re-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid-0425 
> 
> Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they
> are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This
> capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in
> demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also
> provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed
> to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor
> designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and
> Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older
> reactors now in service. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand
>> resulting in l 
> ess than 50% duty cycle.  
> 
> Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base
> load. What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like
> when a cloud shows up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>> 
>> So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to
>> our total 
>  energy production is at face value fallacious.
> 
> BS.  MIT says so.  And even if it were true, we could use nuclear
> for a lot more than 20%.  And shouldn't we?  The climate change
> folks say the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does
> that in a big and real way.   After two decades of talk and
> actually putting up a lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power
> comes from solar. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity. 
>   I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the
>   max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW,
>   that's 2:1.  Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply
>   would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot
>   power should something go offline.  But then nuke plants are
>   inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they
>   turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to
>   dump 100%.  Just very expensive. 
>> 
>> So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we
>> can't solve 
> the carbon problem with it. 
> 
> Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far
> more serious limitations.  And at 1.6% of power from solar after
> all the harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher
> electric bills, it sure hasn't done much. 
> 
> 
> 
> 

  Nearly all power plants now also have gas turbine boost gen sets 
for demand response.

  Some generate purely from gas turbines

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com: 

> He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
> distinction that you seem to recognise. 
> 

There are over a hundred in development or production.

  Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle 
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other 
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships, 
submarines.

  The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive 
material in a missile as the booster medium.  How stupid.

  We had the cold war dead, and folks were all NOT making nukes.
Fucking Putin brought it all back, and started ignoring the 
agreements made.  How quaint.

  "I'm ordering our bombers back to fail-safe.  We might have to go 
through this thing after all." --General Beringer ("War Games")

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:45:12 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 5:59:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:01:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power.  Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%.  Those are the facts.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Actually, it is 19% and declining.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 19% vs what I said, 20%. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >  What a nit to pick, stupid lib.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > How?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Stupid lib.  The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What fifty nuclear plants?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Ask your butt buddy, DL.  He can use Google and found them.
> > > 
> > > He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else.
> > 
> > 
> > ROFL!  I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in
> > other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him
> > to say I'm wrong, because I said 50? 
> 
> You said fifty power reactors, DL said 53 reactors in total, including an unspecified number of research reactors, and I pointed out that reactors used to produce medical isotopes might show up in such a list too.
> 
> What that reveals is that you don't appreciate that there is more than one kind of nuclear reactor, which devalues your under-informed opinion even further.

No, what all that proves is I was right and you two are pathetically
nit picking, obfuscating and being shysters, as usual.  Hello?
The claim was made that no one was building nuclear power plants anywhere
any more because they are economically not viable.  I stated there
were 50 under construction, I was right.  Case closed.  Maybe you could
learn to use Google instead of embarrassing yourself?  Instead you
just prove how libs lie and lie.


Rest of your BS flushed!   Ah, the air is so much better here now.

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
> news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com: 
> 
> > He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
> > distinction that you seem to recognise. 
> > 
> 
> There are over a hundred in development or production.

Bingo!  Exactly what I said, 50 being built, 50 in the planning
stages.  Thank you.



> 
>   Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle 
> of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other 
> use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships, 
> submarines.

And that is incorrect.  There are 50 nuclear POWER plants under
construction.  Geeez, this is simple stuff.  It's not like we're
trying to figure out the number of crickets in Bolivia.




> 
>   The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive 
> material in a missile as the booster medium.  How stupid.

That's true.  We started prototypes in the 50s, but gave up on
it because of the contamination issues.  And that was 60 years ago.
The Russians apparently think it's OK in today's world.



> 
>   We had the cold war dead, and folks were all NOT making nukes.
> Fucking Putin brought it all back, and started ignoring the 
> agreements made.  How quaint.

+1

And it;s only part of what he's been up to.  Much else is just like
the old evil empire, eg Crimea, invading half the rest of Ukraine,
shooting down MH17, opponents poisoned and dead...

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:52:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 5:59:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:01:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > > > > > > >  
> > > > > > > > > > Nuclear generates 20% of US power.  Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%.  Those are the facts.
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > Actually, it is 19% and declining.
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > 19% vs what I said, 20%. 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > >  What a nit to pick, stupid lib.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > How?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Stupid lib.  The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What fifty nuclear plants?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Ask your butt buddy, DL.  He can use Google and found them.
> > > 
> > > He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else. 
> > 
> > ROFL!  I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in
> > other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him
> > to say I'm wrong, because I said 50?   ROFL.  You're amazing. Fifty or
> > fifty three, who the hell cares, except a troll like you.  My point is
> > 100% correct.
> 
> Your point is 100% wishful thinking. If you had a little more sense you might be aware of the fact.
> 
> Fifty reactors was always a suspiciously round number. Fifty more being planned even more so.

Oh my!  What if it's actually 47 or 53?  Who the hell cares?  The
claim was made that there are no new nuclear power plants being 
built and that was WRONG.   You really are quite an amazing piece
of work.






>  
> > And DL didn't say "quite a few' were research, he said some.  So,
> > let's recap your lying lib methods  I said there were
> > 50 nuclear power reactors currently under construction and 50 more in the
> > planning stages.  DL claims that I'm wrong, it's actually 53, as if that
> > nit matters.  Now, IDK what he added beyond the fifty POWER reactors,
> > neither do you and I don't care.  But now you take his increased
> > number which may include three research reactors on top of the 50
> > POWER reactors, and try to use that to claim that I'm wrong.
> 
> You want to imagine that his 53 planned reactors include exactly three research reactors? 


And there you go again.  He didn't say there were 53 'planned", he
said there were 53 being BUILT.  He later posted that there are
50 MORE in the planning stages.  Compare that to what I said from
the start.  I said 50 under construction, 50 more in the planning
stages.  I was right, but you just drone on, nit pick, twist, lie
and turn.

did you figure out how Google works yet, fool?

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:57:08 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
> On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 4:09:35 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
> > > On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > BS.  If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather
> > > > calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out
> > > > on nuclear right now.  Nuclear generates 20% of US power.  Solar, after
> > > > all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%.  Those are the facts.
> > > 
> > > Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability.  But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading.  Nuclear has the same problem.  Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons. 
> > 
> > That's not true and MIT says so.  In fact they say they are good for being
> > able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind.  You know, like when
> > clouds show up?
> > 
> > http://news.mit.edu/2018/flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-more-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid-0425
> > 
> > Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle.  
> > 
> > Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base load.
> > What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like when a cloud
> > shows up.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > 
> > > So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total energy production is at face value fallacious.
> > 
> > BS.  MIT says so.  And even if it were true, we could use nuclear for
> > a lot more than 20%.  And shouldn't we?  The climate change folks say
> > the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does that in a big
> > and real way.   After two decades of talk and actually putting up a
> > lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power comes from solar.
> 
> You didn't even read what I wrote.  MIT is talking about the technical limitations of nuclear reactors.  I said the "economic" issues because they are so expensive they have to be run flat out to be affordable. 

BS.  MIT was proposing nuclear power plants as being compatible with
being used in conjunction with alternate power production today.  It would
be pretty stupid to be writing that if economics makes it impossible.


> Gas plants are very inexpensive to build and the lion's share of the cost in running them is the fuel.

Last time I checked we were supposed to stop using them, because they
are killing the planet.






  Stop running them and your fuel cost goes to zero. 

Stop running a nuke and your fuel cost goes to zero too.


> So for variable load you use gas, for base load you use nuclear..

Sure, but we're supposed to get rid of the nat gas, AOC says the
world will end in ten years.  In which case having nuclear there
when it's cloudy or night, is perfectly viable.  Just ask the
50 operators that are building them right now or the 50 others
in the planning stages.  I would expect with their $$$ on the line
they have a better understanding of the viability than you do.



. if it is still affordable even then.  No one has to spend many billions of dollars or take a decade to build a gas power plant or any other type either.  Just nuclear. 
> 
> 
> >   We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity.  I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1.  Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline.  But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%.  Just very expensive. 
> > > 
> > > So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve the carbon problem with it. 
> > 
> > Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far more
> > serious limitations.  And at 1.6% of power from solar after all the
> > harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher electric
> > bills, it sure hasn't done much.
> 
> You still don't get it.  The issue with solar and wind is variability in supply which can be mitigated with storage.

Oh BS.  The ability to use storage is very limited.  You can only do it
in special cases, eg hydro, where you can use an existing lake or 
create a new reservoir.  And when you try to do that, the same tree
huggers that block everything will be there complaining about the impact
to some frog and they will try to block it.




>  I suppose you can mitigate the inflexibility of nuclear with storage too, but not the high price tag. 

That's silly.  Per MIT, just turn the dial back.



> 
> -- 
> 
>   Rick C.
> 
>   -+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
>   -+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209