OT: France building more nuclear reactors

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1a26a08a-f79f-43f9-a9c7-0038e6ffe4d7n@googlegroups.com: 

> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 11:22:49 PM UTC-4,
> bill....@ieee.org 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-nuc
>> > lear-re 
> actors-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. 
> 
> I don't see how that gives France any bragging right.   While the
> latest reactors they designed were being built a startup electric
> automobile company was formed and grew to be a top 10 market cap
> company in the world.  By the time France completes construction
> of any new reactors you can expect most of us in this group will
> be dead and another phase of history will have passed.  Watching a
> time lapse video of their plants being built would be a bit like
> watching the time travel scenes in the movie, "The Time Machine". 
>  
> 
> I've always thought the time machine from that movie should have
> ape hangers rather than Victorian lights and levers.  
> 

  You might like/remember/laugh at this:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u0vqD202Tw>

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in news:smnrj0$1eih$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

snip

  Damnit!  This is the right one... (or maybe not)

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9Vd1CKiR8g>

DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in news:smns58$1la2$1
@gioia.aioe.org:

> DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote in news:smnrj0$1eih$1
> @gioia.aioe.org:
> 
> snip
> 
>   Damnit!  This is the right one... (or maybe not)
> 
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9Vd1CKiR8g>
> 

  Oh wait!

  No!  It was this one...

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umj0gu5nEGs>

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 emmissions per capita, the UK ranks 
44. That's pretty much the difference between having  a lot of nukes and 
a few.
So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho".
Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2 
rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

MK

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 emmissions per capita, the UK ranks 
> 44. That's pretty much the difference between having  a lot of nukes and 
> a few.
> So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho".
> Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2 
> rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
> 
> MK
> 
> 

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.
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.

======================================================
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
======================================================
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in
news:smo8v9$skm$1@dont-email.me: 

> 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-nuc
>>>> lear-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 emmissions per capita, the
>> UK ranks 44. That's pretty much the difference between having&nbsp; a
>> lot of nukes and a few.
>> So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho".
>> Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in
>> CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
>> 
>> MK
>> 
>> 
> 
> 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.
> 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.
> 

  Your whore mother dreamt of nonense when she let your father ass 
fuck her and then she saddled the world with your unflushed mass.

  Yes nuke is the most power and efficient, but ALSO produces waste 
products with thousands of years long half lifes.  You do not get to 
ignore that, nor do you get to tout the alternative, supplemental 
sources as useless.  No, they are not Gigawatt power generation 
sources, but every little bit helps.

   Except for you.  You're no fucking help at all.

  Some 30 years ago you should have lept off a tall bridge in the 
dead of winter.

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:=20
> > On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:=20
> >> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:=
=20
> >>> https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-=
reactors-to-meet-climate-goals=20
> >>>=20
> >>>=20
> >>> Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.=20
> >>>=20
> >>> That's so embarrassing.=20
> >>=20
> >> France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially=20
> >> they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be=
=20
> >> nuclear power, and they've never had to guts to admit that it was a=20
> >> silly idea.=20
> >>=20
> >> John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.=20
> >>=20
> > France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks=
=20
> > 44. That's pretty much the difference between having  a lot of nukes an=
d=20
> > a few.=20

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".=20

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 aft=
er it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.

> > Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2=20
> > rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.=20

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 supplyi=
ng about 50% of its electric power.=20
>=20
> Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before "they"=20
> get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make=20
> the clean energy we need.=20

It isn't. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it i=
sn'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 no=
nsense.=20

There's nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric pow=
er. Like solar power, it isn't there all the time, but grid scale storage i=
s  practical - if you've got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capa=
city, it's easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batt=
eries are becoming more popular.

Australia has a lot of roof-top solar panels, and there's a push to get hou=
seholders to buy enough battery storage to keep their homes running over-ni=
ght - the people who run the grid don't like having to buy in power from ho=
usehold solar cells, and don't pay much for it. In the longer term, electri=
c cars put a battery of about the right size in almost every household.

--=20
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 11/13/2021 14:58, Anthony William Sloman 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.
> 

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
decades and it has worked on the general public, that's all.

> 
>> 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.
> 


Toying with windmills and solar will be "practical" only as long as the
subsidies last. 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.

Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in news:smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-
email.me:

> Nuclear power is actually cheaper than any other available today.
> Once anti-nuclear activists are shown the figures they start babbling
> about waste.
> 

  You are a goddamned idiot.  I learned about nuclear power 50 years 
ago, you fucking TrumpLike putz.

  I did not need to see any of your retarded upper anus spout boy 
figures either.  I am not an activist.  And nobody is babbling here but 
you.

 Damn you are stupid, boy!

  It IS efficient power, and there is WASTE.  There is ALSO other power 
generation moethods being used and NOT embracing those is more wastful 
than your mom's pathetic criminal level failure to flush you the moment 
the street slut shat you.

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 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. 
> >
> 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  decades 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 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. 
> 
> 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