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

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 9:41:10 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 8:10:45 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:15:36 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > 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. 
> > 
> > You are still convinced you are right, which comes as no surprise.
> > 
> > The problem is that you haven't told us where your claim that the are fifty reactors under construction came from, and you persist in imagining that your unsupported opinion is worth posting. This persistence makes your opinion worthless.
> 
> Typical stupid lib troll.  You need someone else to do it for you.
> There should be a new govt program to pay for google for you and
> to have someone push the buttons.   Your buddy DL easily found it.
> Took me about 30 secs.  And there is no point, you just deny, deny
> deny, lie, lie lie.  No matter what anyone presents, it's never
> sufficient.

You miss the point, as I seem to have mentioned before.

The question is where you are getting your half-baked numbers, not what the right answer is - since nuclear reactors aren't the solution to anthropogenic global warming, much as you'd like them to be,  the "right" answer doesn't get us anywhere.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 9:49:29 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:39:44 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:31:22 PM UTC+10, Jasen Betts wrote:
> > > On 2019-08-21, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:28:59 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > >> 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:

<snip>

> > > > If you don't care about the exact numbers - and can't tell us where they came from - any number you do claim is unreliable.
> > > 
> > > I googled: how many nuke reactors being built 
> > > 
> > > and found this page:
> > > 
> > > https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/global-number-of-nuclear-reactors.aspx
> > > 
> > > There seems to be "about 50" listed there, the smallest is 29MW, but
> > > most are over 500MW.
> > 
> > This is the nuclear power industry talking about the nuclear power industry. The embarrassing details get left out.
> 
> ROFL
> 
> Bingo!  Right on cue.  Just like I said, no point supplying you with
> references, you just move on to the next stage of lying and denying,
> which is why I wasn't going to play your troll game.

Trader4 is too dim to realise that he is troll.

> I suppose we should go to the Association of Florists for data?

And idiot like you might do that.

People comparing - say - various different sorts of utility power generators could be expected to take a more objective view of nuclear power generating plants than world-nuclear.org.

You couldn't even find that.

> And again, the names of the nuclear projects and countries are
> listed, you could just Google them to verify, but instead, you just
> post more BS and further embarrass yourself.  Or is Google still
> broken down under?

How do you thing I found the stuff about the duff steel castings in French nuclear reactors (which you snipped without marking the snip)? You really are remarkably stupid.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 11:07:10 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:43:07 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > Bingo. Another guy that can use Google.  That's three of us now, only
> > one dope can;t and lies and denies instead.  Next it will be that your
> > source is lying.
> 
> There are more than three that can use Google.  But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Dan isn't much better at concocting replies than Trader4. He's probably not as stupid, but there's a lot of room at the bottom.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 04:30:17 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 8:17:17 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:22:21 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
>> > 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.
>> 
>> It is not exactly what you said, but your enthusiasm for reiterating favourite line of BS blinds you to that inconvenient fact.
>
>It is what I said and my position, that there are 50 nuclear power
>plants being built, 50 more in the planning stages, shows that they
>are economically viable.  Stop lying and ignoring the facts.  But
>it's typical, it's what you do.
>
>
>
>
>> 
>> > >   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.
>> 
>> But you can't post a link to anybody credible who makes this particular claim. 
>
>Google still broken down under, fool?  Typical lib.  I can't do it
>myself, I want someone else to do my work for me.  Waaaaah!
>

Children, stop talking about yourselves and discuss the topic now and
then.

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 8:17:17 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:22:21 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > 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.
> > 
> > It is not exactly what you said, but your enthusiasm for reiterating favourite line of BS blinds you to that inconvenient fact.
> 
> It is what I said and my position, that there are 50 nuclear power
> plants being built, 50 more in the planning stages, shows that they
> are economically viable.  

They are being built, but that does NOT show they are economically "viable".  Countries often do things that are not great ideas or even good ideas.  They even do things that are bad ideas.  The fact that they are being done doesn't show they are good ideas or economically viable. 

How many nuclear reactors which started construction in the last 10 years finished on time (even remotely) and on budget (even remotely)?  That would be a better indicator of being "viable".  Even then, the life cycle cost is seldom known or factored into the decision when these things are planned. 


> Stop lying and ignoring the facts.  But
> it's typical, it's what you do.

When you saying things like this it seems you aren't really looking for the truth.  Just look at the facts and don't bother with the name calling.  


> > > >   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.
> > 
> > But you can't post a link to anybody credible who makes this particular claim. 
> 
> Google still broken down under, fool?  Typical lib.  I can't do it
> myself, I want someone else to do my work for me.  Waaaaah!

This has nothing to do with politics.  This is engineering and economics. 

-- 

  Rick C.

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

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 10:03:03 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 11:07:10 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
> > On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:43:07 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
> > > > Bingo. Another guy that can use Google.  That's three of us now, only
> > > one dope can;t and lies and denies instead.  Next it will be that your
> > > source is lying.
> > 
> > There are more than three that can use Google.  But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.
> 
> Dan isn't much better at concocting replies than Trader4. He's probably not as stupid, but there's a lot of room at the bottom.
> 
> -- 
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

You seem to forget.  Higher IQ, better university, and more money.

                                    Dan

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:4e471860-9925-45c6-
94b6-944ef7d1385c@googlegroups.com:

> 
> 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.
> 
> 

  If it is so simple then post the citation, asswipe.

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote in
news:55745972-1041-40da-895d-b29c6e2c8db5@googlegroups.com: 

> They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an
> infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which
> may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like
> that with a non-nuclear source. 
> 

  What are they doing with it spooling up an atmospheric 
turbine/turboprop?

  It looked like a missile taking off vertically.  That takes a lot of 
immediately spent juice.  Must be a strange design.

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:cade0262-7a3b-41f4-
a0cb-7a1554def85b@googlegroups.com:

> Is hypersonic considered cruising?
> 

  'cruising' is not about velocity.  It is about keeping velocity.

  It is about max fuel economy at max velocity.

  A jet used to require afterburners, but now GE makes engines which 
allow supersonic flight without afterburners, and they call it 
'supercruise'.

  So if the thing can go long term at some hyper-velocity, it would 
likely be properly labeled as cruising.

  It is about the ease with which a powerplant can maintain a rate 
once a forward velocity is reached.

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ea37b90f-d3be-4b1d-8cb3-4b7e5fb298ba@googlegroups.com: 

> It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might
> cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to
> target. 
> 
> -- 

  Anything claiming to be hypersonic would be at altitude.  Down here 
in the thick air, speeds like that melt and burn up meteor fragments, 
remember?  Less likely anything truly reliable is running.

  The projectiles we fire from our big railguns are practically a 
plasma by the time they reach their targets.

  Air molecules hurt when they hit that hard.  And there are so many 
down here at sea level.

  Hypersonic missile claims...  experimentors.

  We are also experimenting with really pointy, really slick and fast 
torpedoes.