Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:e55e20db-06ca-
4ec6-95dc-230d6c3b4634@googlegroups.com:
This is true of all reactors that I am aware of.
Fission reactors.
No "control rods" in a fusion reactor.
On Saturday, 6 July 2019 19:30:13 UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reacto
rs-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign
=Feed% 3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to
other power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United
States. According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved
thousands of lives. It produces no carbon dioxide. It's total
waste from the beginning would fill a football field to less than
10 yards high. That's why our leaders act not very concerned
about Yucca Mountain and the like.
People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just
weird, considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.
Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us
perilously out of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear
power plants are failing!"
I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say CO2
emissions are going to doom us all soon are also against nuclear
power. Whatever risk there is from nuclear power, seems it should
still be far better than a global climate catastrophe. The same
folks are pretty much against everything else too. They talk
wind, but when it comes time to actually build a wind farm, that's
no good too. Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.
On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds.... Many of them
think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.
Except for the production cost and waste, solar power is a good thing.
But for those reasons and others wind is nonsensical. If global
warming is the concern, you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.
And Yes, people should be ignored when they promote electric vehicles
without promoting the most viable electricity production, nuclear
power plants.
Once again, Germany is acting like the Land of the Idiots. They are
dismantling all of their nuclear reactors. Intelligent people being so
badly misled. It will be a great lesson for the rest of the world.
What happens when it falls apart.
This is a country with a nominal (not just inflation-adjusted real) negative interest rate on their 10-year bond.
https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=DE10Y-DE
What the heck is that about?
--Spehro Pefhany
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:738896d8-37ab-4cf3-a1b7-12cddab88b0d@googlegroups.com:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 4:10:27 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:
On 2019/07/08 9:52 a.m., Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:27:35 PM UTC-4, John Robertson
wrote:
On 2019/07/08 8:46 a.m., Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4,
jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions
the design as being the most viable possibility for fusion
reactors to date, but the thing has been running, or at
least operational for over twenty years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit.
They got tubing for the wires that make the containment
field. (Star Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires
get hot they care if they melt. If that happens you pretty
much have an H bomb going off.
I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl,
Three Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is
dangerous but fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out
of control. We are not talking about radiation poisoning
wrecking land and people have to move, we are talking
taking a couple of states right off the map. (I hope
they're California and New York, but get Lieberman out
first) ..
Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't
really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into
bomb stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium
reactor has cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries,
we could let them have thorium reactors but the whole thing
is more expensive.
Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it
a few times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted
uranium rounds are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed
which makes them able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast
enough that they still have some kinetic energy after going
through the armor. If I was a country and had that shit I
would never give it up.
...
Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you
probably get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and
really you probably shouldn't. They just pay you.
I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a
profound ignorance on so many levels at once.
I truly feel sorry for this guy.
You could have made a small effort to set a few things
straight. Just stating he's wrong in so many places isn't
productive.
So, fusion reactors can't explode like hydrogen bombs.
They'll be lucky to attain any significant amount of fusion
at all. Tokamaks have no lasers. They confine a deuterium
plasma using magnetic fields. Lasers are used for Inertial
Confinement Fusion. Neither tokamak nor ICF works well enough
for energy production, up to present.
France has 19 operational pressurized water nuclear reactors,
generating about 70% of the county's electricity. They are
basically the Westinghouse design. I visited the St. Alban
reactor some years ago. That was interesting.
Depleted uranium is what's left over after the U235 has been
extracted from natural uranium in an enrichment plant, mostly
ultra-centrifuges these days. It has never been in a reactor,
so it's not particularly radioactive. It's mostly a waste
product. It's used in ammunition because it's heavy, so it
improves the penetrating power, and it burns, increasing the
damage. It's also a toxic heavy metal.
Jeroen Belleman
The CANDU reactor is designed to work on un-enriched uranium,
and it does not produce weapons grade materials without
extensive enriching after the fuel rod is spent.
It can also run on Thorium...
https://cna.ca/technology/energy/candu-technology/
No melt-downs (so far...). The safety systems can be tested
when the reactor is running full-tilt.
Heavy water is the moderator, so if the reactor overheats and
boils of
f
the HW the reaction then reduces intensity and you are then
left tryin
g
to cool the overheated mass, rather than dealing with a
melt-down. The backup safety systems help reduce risk of
leakage of radioactive steam
, etc.
I thought this sounded wrong. The heavy water is the coolant
for the c
ore. Losing the coolant water destroys the reactor. Control rods
are used to reduce the chain reaction. If that fails nuclear
"poison" is injected, "boron as boric anhydride, and gadolinium as
gadolinium nitrate"
https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-h
appen-i
n-the-worst-case-scenario
Heavy water is part of the moderator system:
https://www.thebalance.com/candu-nuclear-reactor-is-moderated-with
-heavy-
water-1182652
https://teachnuclear.ca/all-things-nuclear/nuclear-energy/candu-re
actors/
Irrelevant. It is not in any way part of the safety system to
prevent a meltdown. Losing the heavy water may eliminate a chain
reaction in the fuel, but it does not eliminate the need for
cooling. Since the heavy water *is* the coolant, that would be a
very bad thing.
Nothing is perfect, but the CANDU reactor has a safety record
that is hard to beat. Releases far less radiation than burning
coal (radon released burning coal).
https://interestingengineering.com/nuclear-meltdown-what-would-
happen-
in-the-worst-case-scenario
These days no one worries about radiation released as part of
the norma
l operation of a reactor. I don't know why you mention it. It's
the accidents and even more importantly the fuel waste that is the
problem.
Also CANDU reactors operate more efficiently than any other...
How is that exactly? In what way are they more efficient?
You do not need to shut the reactor down to refuel - this can
happen while the reactor is running at full capacity. That is a
savings right there in terms of reliable power.
True, CANDUs run around 30% efficiency which is comparable to
most reactors, but are inherently safer to operate and with no
containment failures in over 50 years gives them an enviable
record.
All I ask is you take a look at the CANDU system and consider it
as a viable alternative to LWR.
Last word:
http://www.xylenepower.com/CANDU%20Reactors.htm
I will if you get your facts straight. Show me one reference that
indicates a loss of the coolant in a CANDU reactor will not
destroy the reactor and will prevent a meltdown.
Maybe you should read more thoroughly.
Quoted within ten seconds of hitting the page...
6. Inherent safety. If there is a significant loss of heavy water the
fission reactions stop because the reactor becomes subcritical.
However, some pressure tube water flow must be maintained to remove
fission product decay heat.
There it is right there! You must keep coolant flowing to prevent
the decay heat from destroying the reactor!
Also CANDU reactors operate more efficiently than any other...
How is that exactly? In what way are they more efficient?
You do not need to shut the reactor down to refuel - this can happen
while the reactor is running at full capacity. That is a savings right
there in terms of reliable power.
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
Tell that to your howling lib friends, like AOC. She says the world
is going to end from global warming in ten years. Regardless of when
exactly a real crisis starts, all the global warming folks that I know
of say we need to act IMMEDIATELY, hence my point that if that's the
case, it's quite amusing that they don't want nukes as part of the solution.
In many ways this is a straw man argument. While I'm sure there are people who are opposed to both nukes and climate change, they aren't the mainstream. So why are you making this a big deal?
Nuclear power poses different kinds of risks and trying to equate the two is a bit silly.
It's not silly at all. Nukes can be part of the solution. So, if global
warming is such an urgent crisis, it's amusing that the tree huggers
reject it as an option. But then they reject most anything, windmills,
solar farms, when you actually try to build one. It's also amusing to see
you dance.
More straw man, to the point of absurdity.
The bottom line is that solar power and wind power can be installed in smaller chunks, along with the batteries and pumped storage to cope with the fact that they don't provide power continuously.
Nuclear power stations would help, but they take a decade or for planning, permissions and construction,
Only because of the tree huggers and all the BS. Maybe Trump should sign
an emergency exec order to cut through all that.
To do what exactly? Order the construction of uneconomical nuclear plants? They aren't being built because they can't produce electricity at a reasonable cost.
and nobody wants to tie up all that capital for taht long before they state seeing cas coming in from customers.
The same folks are pretty much against everything else too.
There are some lunatic tree-huggers in the group, but they are a tiny minority.
They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too.
Some people are little too fixated n potential problems.
Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.
Offshore windmills create artificial reefs, which are good for fish.
Birds cope with predatory birds who fly much faster than windmill blades rotate, and are lot less predictable. And if you put the windmills far enough off-shore, nobody can see how ugly they. Their "uglyness" hasn't stopped a lot of big windmills getting built on-shore. we drove past quite a few of them last week when drving down from the Netehrlands to Burgundy (through Belgium and Luxemburg).
On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds....
Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.
5% of the population is nuts. They make silly complaints, which tend to be ignored.
Including you of course.
Ad hominem. Do you ever discuss the facts rationally?
Meanwhile, has anyone figured out what's going on with cold fusion yet?
Last I recall, there seemed to be a lot of growing evidence that something
was going on to generate energy, but they also renamed it from cold fusion
to something else, because it doesn't fit with our understanding of fusion
and they haven't seen what would be expected from actual fusion.
I picked up one such suggestion and posted it here some time ago.
Some of the istopes of palladium could capture a deutron and spit out an alpha particle - which would be cold fission, rather than cold fusion, but still an energy source. It could explain that odd behaviour that started the cold fusion story in the first place.
Alpha particles are not neutrons. They are stopped by a piece of paper. So, no, they are not likely villains in the cold fusion caper.
--
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:46:37 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 8:09:36 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com
wrote:
For those uninformed wiki has an article on it, it mentions the
design as being the most viable possibility for fusion reactors
to date, but the thing has been running, or at least operational
for over twenty years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
I got wind of those a long time ago. Checked it out a bit. They
got tubing for the wires that make the containment field. (Star
Trek anyone ?) They don't care if the wires get hot they care if
they melt. If that happens you pretty much have an H bomb going
off.
I remember when people were afraid on nuclear, Chernobyl, Three
Mile Island all that, and that was fission. It is dangerous but
fusion is much more dangerous if it gets out of control. We are
not talking about radiation poisoning wrecking land and people
have to move, we are talking taking a couple of states right off
the map. (I hope they're California and New York, but get
Lieberman out first)
So if people find out about that they will oppose it no doubt,
or some will. And part of that is their not complete confidence
in technology and I actually cannot disagree. These days,
science has fucked up enough to justify a healthy skepticism to
say the least. I have proof of data that were actually paid for
and it goes on and on. Say I make a speaker and I want you to
say it is the best speaker in the world. Most people would do
that for fifty bucks.
In fission reactors France, the cunts they are... actually
showed the world how to do it. They got a kagillion nuclear
plants and I am pretty sure they have had no accidents. Well
except for that guy who dropped his "Royale" on the floor. A
Royale is a quarter pounder, but they have the metric system.
After the movie Pulp Fiction came out, when we wanted to get a
quarter pound of smoke we would say we want a Royale.
Anyway, as useless as they may be in war they are damn good at
making electricity. Well everybody has their strengths and
weaknesses.
Anyway, I heard about the Tokamak before I was on the internet.
Friend of mine works for Case, which used to be Case Western
Reserve and he got me access to their BBS. A professor name
Robert F. Heeter was involved, though I am pretty sure he was
not local. He put out a glossary that was contributed much to by
students, and I would imagine he edited it for errors since his
name was on it. I still have it saved but I saved it in reserve
alphabetical order, I don't remember why, I wasn't all that PC
savvy then. (not that I am now lol, every time I learn something
it seems they change it)
Another thing they could do is go with thorium. They don't
really want to talk about it because it cannot be bred into bomb
stuff. Also, I don't remember exactly but a thorium reactor has
cooling problems. So these pipsqueak countries, we could let
them have thorium reactors but the whole thing is more
expensive.
Using uranium and all that type of stuff they can reuse it a few
times and then just make ammo out of it. Depleted uranium rounds
are bad to the bone. They warm when deformed which makes them
able to pierce armor. And FAST. Fast enough that they still have
some kinetic energy after going through the armor. If I was a
country and had that shit I would never give it up.
Actually, a combination of wind and solar might do it if we get
more efficient. And other things. Like not driving your big
block V8 truck to work 35 miles away for a job at a bank.
Myself, there are three people living in this house, do I need
two deepfreezers ? Wanna clean up the planet ? First thing is to
quit wasting. But the deepfreeze, it isn't that much. If it is
not opened the compressor hardly ever comes on. But the thing
is, waste ? Having the capacity and buying in bulk we save a ton
of money. I would offer some to the Daygos next door but that
might insult them. None of my chosens are hurting enough to need
food. So now we have like a moratorium on buying food here.
Anyway, enough postulating about energy use and back to fusion.
One of the main problems is injecting fuel. It is no so simple.
I said the Tokamak was running all those years ? Well yeah but
not continuously. It is going to burn out and then you have to
reload it. Then you flip that LASER on to fire it up again. I do
not believe there is a way to keep them running continuously but
maybe they got a new idea. I am no expert, I just know the
principles of operation and all that.
Bottom line is if you can make fusion really work you probably
get a Nobel prize. You don't have to patent it and really you
probably shouldn't. They just pay you.
I can't recall reading any post here that showed such a profound
ignorance on so many levels at once.
I truly feel sorry for this guy.
You could have made a small effort to set a few things straight.
Just stating he's wrong in so many places isn't productive.
Productive in what sense? He isn't going to acknowledge anything you wrote. He will just spew more ignorance. I don't think others here need education about these issues. Most are willing to read and learn.
So, fusion reactors can't explode like hydrogen bombs. They'll
be lucky to attain any significant amount of fusion at all.
Tokamaks have no lasers. They confine a deuterium plasma using
magnetic fields. Lasers are used for Inertial Confinement Fusion.
Neither tokamak nor ICF works well enough for energy production,
up to present.
Of course. If they did, we would be using them. Any idiot can see that. Oh, that's right, Jurb isn't just any idiot.
Ad hominem. Do you ever discuss the facts rationally?
Meanwhile, has anyone figured out what's going on with cold fusion yet?
Last I recall, there seemed to be a lot of growing evidence that something
was going on to generate energy, but they also renamed it from cold fusion
to something else, because it doesn't fit with our understanding of fusion
and they haven't seen what would be expected from actual fusion.
I picked up one such suggestion and posted it here some time ago.
Some of the istopes of palladium could capture a deutron and spit out an alpha particle - which would be cold fission, rather than cold fusion, but still an energy source. It could explain that odd behaviour that started the cold fusion story in the first place.
Alpha particles are not neutrons. They are stopped by a piece of paper. So, no, they are not likely villains in the cold fusion caper.
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 7:43:47 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, July 6, 2019 at 4:24:36 PM UTC+2, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Friday, July 5, 2019 at 9:53:11 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote
The global clinmate "catastrophe" isn't going to look all that catastrophic for quite a while. It will produce some localised catastrophes - so far limited to recording-breaking wind speeds in occcasional tropical cyclones.
Tell that to your howling lib friends, like AOC. She says the world
is going to end from global warming in ten years.
Nuclear power poses different kinds of risks and trying to equate the two is a bit silly.
It's not silly at all. Nukes can be part of the solution. So, if global
warming is such an urgent crisis, it's amusing that the tree huggers
reject it as an option.
The bottom line is that solar power and wind power can be installed in smaller chunks, along with the batteries and pumped storage to cope with the fact that they don't provide power continuously.
Nuclear power stations would help, but they take a decade or for planning, permissions and construction,
Only because of the tree huggers and all the BS.
Maybe Trump should sign
an emergency exec order to cut through all that.
and nobody wants to tie up all that capital for taht long before they state seeing cash coming in from customers.
The same folks are pretty much against everything else too.
There are some lunatic tree-huggers in the group, but they are a tiny minority.
They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too.
Some people are little too fixated on potential problems.
Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.
Offshore windmills create artificial reefs, which are good for fish.
Birds cope with predatory birds who fly much faster than windmill blades rotate, and are lot less predictable. And if you put the windmills far enough off-shore, nobody can see how ugly they. Their "uglyness" hasn't stopped a lot of big windmills getting built on-shore. we drove past quite a few of them last week when drving down from the Netehrlands to Burgundy (through Belgium and Luxemburg).
On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds....
Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.
5% of the population is nuts. They make silly complaints, which tend to be ignored.
Including you of course.
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 3:10:17 PM UTC-4, speff wrote:
On Saturday, 6 July 2019 19:30:13 UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote:
John Doe wrote:
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/safer-nuclear-reacto
rs-
are-on-the-way/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign
=Feed% 3A+ScientificAmerican-News+%28Content%3A+News%29
There is nothing dangerous about nuclear reactors, relative to
other power producers. Responsible for ZERO deaths in the United
States. According to NASA, using nuclear power has saved
thousands of lives. It produces no carbon dioxide. It's total
waste from the beginning would fill a football field to less than
10 yards high. That's why our leaders act not very concerned
about Yucca Mountain and the like.
People who cry about the Fukushima nuclear disaster are just
weird, considering the tsunami itself killed 15,000.
Someday a huge meteor will strike the Earth, sending us
perilously out of orbit, and the freaks will scream "The nuclear
power plants are failing!"
I also find it amusing that most of the tree huggers who say CO2
emissions are going to doom us all soon are also against nuclear
power. Whatever risk there is from nuclear power, seems it should
still be far better than a global climate catastrophe. The same
folks are pretty much against everything else too. They talk
wind, but when it comes time to actually build a wind farm, that's
no good too. Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.
On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds.... Many of them
think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.
Except for the production cost and waste, solar power is a good thing..
But for those reasons and others wind is nonsensical. If global
warming is the concern, you do not want to decrease the wind flow
across the surface of the earth.
And Yes, people should be ignored when they promote electric vehicles
without promoting the most viable electricity production, nuclear
power plants.
Once again, Germany is acting like the Land of the Idiots. They are
dismantling all of their nuclear reactors. Intelligent people being so
badly misled. It will be a great lesson for the rest of the world.
What happens when it falls apart.
This is a country with a nominal (not just inflation-adjusted real) negative interest rate on their 10-year bond.
https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=DE10Y-DE
What the heck is that about?
--Spehro Pefhany
The People Who Know Better mean that as economic stimulus.
By making saving a losing proposition, they hope to spur
investment. And if lower interest rates stimulate, they
reason, and you've already hit zero, you go negative.
"Yesterday, Mario Draghi, the president of the European Central Bank, clearly opened the door to more stimulus. The ECB had already ruled out raising interest rates but now the central bank has indicated that cutting rates, or even restarting its massive QE program, which only ended in December, are both possibilities."
https://qz.com/1647791/12-trillion-of-negative-yielding-bonds-are-a-distress-signal/
The thing that they all seem to miss is that to increase economic
output, you ultimately have to get more people to produce more stuff.
Or the same number of people to produce more stuff (productivity),
which requires investment.
Just wiggling knobs, taking their savings, and scaring everyone doesn't
do either.
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 6:27:19 PM UTC+2, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-4,
tra...@optonline.net wrote:
snip
Meanwhile, has anyone figured out what's going on with cold
fusion
yet?
Last I recall, there seemed to be a lot of growing evidence
that so
mething
was going on to generate energy, but they also renamed it
from cold
fusion
to something else, because it doesn't fit with our
understanding of
fusion
and they haven't seen what would be expected from actual
fusion.
I picked up one such suggestion and posted it here some time
ago.
Some of the istopes of palladium could capture a deutron and
spit out
an alpha particle - which would be cold fission, rather than cold
fusion, but still an energy source. It could explain that odd
behaviour that started the cold fusion story in the first place.
Alpha particles are not neutrons. They are stopped by a piece of
paper.
So, no, they are not likely villains in the cold fusion caper.
https://www.arpansa.gov.au/understanding-radiation/what-is-radiatio
n/ionising-radiation/alpha-particles
Alpha particles are helium nuclei - two neutrons and two protons.
Heavier than neutrons, but charged, and thus interact strongly
with matter and can be stopped by a piece of paper.
They'd come out of the palladium nucleus with quite a lot of
energy, and it's the occasional excess energy output that has kept
interest cold fusion alive for all these years.
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 6:22:34 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:e55e20db-06ca-
4ec6-95dc-230d6c3b4634@googlegroups.com:
This is true of all reactors that I am aware of.
Fission reactors.
No "control rods" in a fusion reactor.
I'm not sure how you know that. There are no fusion reactors.
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 12:27:19 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Monday, July 8, 2019 at 11:12:14 AM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
Tell that to your howling lib friends, like AOC. She says the world
is going to end from global warming in ten years. Regardless of when
exactly a real crisis starts, all the global warming folks that I know
of say we need to act IMMEDIATELY, hence my point that if that's the
case, it's quite amusing that they don't want nukes as part of the solution.
In many ways this is a straw man argument. While I'm sure there are people who are opposed to both nukes and climate change, they aren't the mainstream. So why are you making this a big deal?
I didn't make it a big deal, I simply stated it. And the vast majority of
the global warming folks are opposed to nuclear power, which obviously
diminishes their credibility. If global warming is going to screw the planet
big time, then clearly nuclear power, with it's track record, is an alternative
we should be pursuing. It's like having a fire that's started in a corner
of your house and having baking soda nearby to put it out, but not using
it because you claim baking soda is no good.
Tell that to your howling lib friends, like AOC. She says the world
is going to end from global warming in ten years.
Nuclear power poses different kinds of risks and trying to equate the two is a bit silly.
It's not silly at all. Nukes can be part of the solution. So, if global
warming is such an urgent crisis, it's amusing that the tree huggers
reject it as an option. But then they reject most anything, windmills,
solar farms, when you actually try to build one. It's also amusing to see
you dance.
More straw man, to the point of absurdity.
The bottom line is that solar power and wind power can be installed in smaller chunks, along with the batteries and pumped storage to cope with the fact that they don't provide power continuously.
Nuclear power stations would help, but they take a decade or for planning, permissions and construction,
Only because of the tree huggers and all the BS. Maybe Trump should sign
an emergency exec order to cut through all that.
To do what exactly? Order the construction of uneconomical nuclear plants? They aren't being built because they can't produce electricity at a reasonable cost.
To cut through all the obstructionist BS that greatly increases the
cost of nuclear power plants. Who's going to spend hundreds of millions
to try to build a plant, unsure when the tree huggers will succeed in
blocking it?
and nobody wants to tie up all that capital for taht long before they state seeing cas coming in from customers.
The same folks are pretty much against everything else too.
There are some lunatic tree-huggers in the group, but they are a tiny minority.
They talk wind, but when it comes time to actually
build a wind farm, that's no good too.
Some people are little too fixated n potential problems.
Offshore it will kill fish, kill birds, look ugly.
Offshore windmills create artificial reefs, which are good for fish..
Birds cope with predatory birds who fly much faster than windmill blades rotate, and are lot less predictable. And if you put the windmills far enough off-shore, nobody can see how ugly they. Their "uglyness" hasn't stopped a lot of big windmills getting built on-shore. we drove past quite a few of them last week when drving down from the Netehrlands to Burgundy (through Belgium and Luxemburg).
On land, NIMBY, it's ugly, it will kill birds....
Many of them think electricity just comes out of the receptacle.
5% of the population is nuts. They make silly complaints, which tend to be ignored.
Including you of course.
Ad hominem. Do you ever discuss the facts rationally?
That can't be done with you, for obvious reasons. For example, you with
your Tesla car. You're like a teenager, totally in love with his first
car. To the point that you can't acknowledge any of the serious limitations
it has, like if it;s discharged and you need to get somewhere fast.
What? You think it is going to melt down to the center of the
Earth, like the acid for blood in "Aliens"? Sure, bub.
You must be one of the uninformed. Tokamak has been OOO for along
time... since '99.
I was working my ass off financing my third childhood. After
while though I did semi-retire and it really kicked in.