On 11/13/2021 6:47 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:> Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in > news:smo8v9$skm$1@dont-email.me: > >> On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote: >>> On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote: >>>> On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe >>>> wrote: >>>>> https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuc >>>>> lear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies. >>>>> >>>>> That's so embarrassing. >>>> >>>> France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - >>>> essentially they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle >>>> wanted France to be nuclear power, and they've never had to guts >>>> to admit that it was a silly idea. >>>> >>>> John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue. >>>> >>> France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emmissions per capita, the >>> UK ranks 44. That's pretty much the difference between having a >>> lot of nukes and a few. >>> So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho". >>> Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in >>> CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers. >>> >>> MK >>> >>> >> >> Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before "they" >> get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make >> the clean energy we need. >> Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even >> now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills >> and similar nonsense. >> > > Your whore mother dreamt of nonense when she let your father ass > fuck her and then she saddled the world with your unflushed mass. >You must be really ignorant if you think that kind of mating will produce an offspring.
OT: France building more nuclear reactors
Started by ●November 10, 2021
Reply by ●November 13, 20212021-11-13
Reply by ●November 13, 20212021-11-13
John S <Sophi.2@invalid.org> wrote in news:smohun$gs$1@dont-email.me:> On 11/13/2021 6:47 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org > wrote: >> Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in >> news:smo8v9$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-n >>>>>> uc 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 >>>> 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. >> > > You must be really ignorant if you think that kind of mating will > produce an offspring. >He was not born through a vaginal canal. He was SHAT out of her skanky ass.
Reply by ●November 13, 20212021-11-13
On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 7:53:20 AM UTC-4, 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 emmissions per capita, the UK rank=s=20> > 44. That's pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes an=d=20> > a few.=20 > > So perhaps BS could explain how it's "stupidly macho".=20 > > Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2=20 > > rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.=20 > >=20 > > MK=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 > Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even=20 > now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills=20 > and similar nonsense.=20Yes, I expect they will have built many, many more GW of wind turbines and = supply a huge percentage of our total electrical power before the public re= alizes the error of such an approach. =20 Have they ever solved the problem with nuclear plants not being able to mat= ch the demand curves? I seem to recall xenon poisoning is a fundamental li= mitation of conventional uranium nukes, no? =20 There are some newer designs that help to minimize this effect or manage it= in some way, but it remains that nukes can never replace dispatchable powe= r generation. So uranium nukes will never be a 100% solution. They are al= so far too costly and difficult to build on schedule and budget. Many, man= y problems building and using nukes. Too many to make them a major source = of electrical energy in the 21st century. =20 --=20 Rick C. + Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging + Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●November 13, 20212021-11-13
On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:22:30 AM UTC-4, 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.Tell that to the Brits who are going to see rate increases because they are building horribly over budget and behind schedule nuke plants. The present fiasco is going to cost the investors who will see their return on investment cut to a fraction and so will require the UK public to take the risk of overruns on future projects. If I were the guy taking the risk, I would make sure I get the lion's share of the profit.> >>> 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.People who don't look at all the facts make such claims. The rest of us know the whole picture.> >> 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.You are ignoring facts here as well. The cost of wind and solar power continue to drop every year, just as Moore's law describes ever decreasing semiconductor features and unit costs. Clearly you can see where this trend heads and understand the implication if you just acknowledge the facts and look. Just today I took a drive up the east coast of Puerto Rico and saw some windmills damaged in Maria which investors are repairing. Along the southern coast near Ponce there are some number of even larger windmills which either were not damaged in Maria or have been fully repaired. Puerto Rico has a significant issue with power reliability and cost. Windmills and solar are helping to deal with these problems. -- Rick C. -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Reply by ●November 15, 20212021-11-15
Dimiter_Popoff wrote:> Michael Kellett wrote:>> 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.Plus the fact nuclear saves lives over other viable energy sources... https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh05000e.html "we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80- 240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury"> 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.The obvious reason to promote dead-end energy sources over nuclear even though nuclear is safer and reduces pollution... Maintain oil company profits. Greenies are useful idiots for oil companies.
Reply by ●November 15, 20212021-11-15
The foulmouthed group idiot Always Wrong rants again... -- DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail > From: DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Subject: Re: OT: France building more nuclear reactors > Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 12:47:08 -0000 (UTC) > Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server > Message-ID: <smoc4b$iei$1@gioia.aioe.org> > References: <smi0i0$nun$1@dont-email.me> <d31d2570-4f15-46d9-81b3-94231228c9aen@googlegroups.com> <7-6dnYbJusEpGxL8nZ2dnUU78RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smo8v9$skm$1@dont-email.me> > Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data="18898"; posting-host="5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.gioia.aioe.org"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@aioe.org"; > User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 > X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:652327 > > Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote in > news:smo8v9$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�� 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. > >
Reply by ●November 15, 20212021-11-15
Ricksy is a greeny at the same time Ricksy promotes bitcoin, (the most idiotic massive waste of electricity). How someone can be knowledgeable about electronics and clueless about science is a mystery... -- Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:> X-Received: by 2002:ad4:56a4:: with SMTP id bd4mr25631414qvb.16.1636849633686; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST) > X-Received: by 2002:a25:328b:: with SMTP id y133mr25811223yby.233.1636849633422; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -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 16:27:13 -0800 (PST) > In-Reply-To: <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me> > Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=107.77.215.69; posting-account=I-_H_woAAAA9zzro6crtEpUAyIvzd19b > NNTP-Posting-Host: 107.77.215.69 > References: <smi0i0$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: <ae4ada98-f8f8-463c-8fba-32999177e15cn@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: OT: France building more nuclear reactors > From: Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> > Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 00:27:13 +0000 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:652391 > > On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:22:30 AM UTC-4, 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. > > Tell that to the Brits who are going to see rate increases because they are building horribly over budget and behind schedule nuke plants. The present fiasco is going to cost the investors who will see their return on investment cut to a fraction and so will require the UK public to take the risk of overruns on future projects. If I were the guy taking the risk, I would make sure I get the lion's share of the profit. > > >> >>> 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. > > People who don't look at all the facts make such claims. The rest of us know the whole picture. > > >> >> 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 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. > > You are ignoring facts here as well. The cost of wind and solar power continue to drop every year, just as Moore's law describes ever decreasing semiconductor features and unit costs. Clearly you can see where this trend heads and understand the implication if you just acknowledge the facts and look. > > Just today I took a drive up the east coast of Puerto Rico and saw some windmills damaged in Maria which investors are repairing. Along the southern coast near Ponce there are some number of even larger windmills which either were not damaged in Maria or have been fully repaired. Puerto Rico has a significant issue with power reliability and cost. Windmills and solar are helping to deal with these problems. > > -- > > Rick C. > > -- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging > -- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209 > >
Reply by ●November 15, 20212021-11-15
But of course the problem with building nuclear reactors has much to do with useful idiots and their politicians. Oil companies have much clout with strong influence over weak minds.
Reply by ●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, SydneyHey SNIPPERMAN (they idiot who stole Bill Sloman's identity), 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. What is "stupid" is relying on intermittent power that requires 100% fossil (like everybody's favorite source: COAL) or nuclear backup, or your perpetually loved blackouts. This is EXACTLY what happened this year to the UK: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/10/13/europes-energy-crisis-underscores-the-dangers-of-the-proposed-clean-electricity-performance-program/?sh=4909964c473a
Reply by ●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 > >
