Driving Too Slow...

[Tom Gardner]

On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:
.... The only suppliers operating on a sound financial basis in the
UK at present have either nuclear or hydro as well as gas generating
capacity in their portfolio and are cross subsidising the loss making
retail arm from that. Industry is screaming blue murder they pay full
price.

This is quickly becoming a worldwide disaster, after decades of
playing with subsidized windmills, rooftops and other nonsense instead
of building enough nuclear what else could we expect. In Bulgaria, they
are \"building\" a second nuclear plant for over 30 years now, must have
spent zillions on \"consulting\" to practically zero results, other than
ongoing wrestling who is to build it. Consequently an energy crisis.

So you think nuclear is the solution to the energy problem other than the
fact that it is prohibitively expensive to build it?

In the UK the present nuclear generation plant being built is not going
to return the profit the money bags expected. So in the future the UK
government is going to allow them to pass all risk to the rate payers and
they can plan and build nuclear projects as inefficiently as they wish!

Yes, what a grand idea!

It has been made too expensive, this is true. Not because it is inherently
expensive though. Because it is regulated (which it should be for obvious
reasons) it has become a convenient cow to milk by plenty of people who
contribute nothing to society but milking that cow. My estimate is that
about 80% of the cost goes there. IOW the problem with nuclear is only
social.

Chernobyl and Fukushima suggests otherwise. Nuclear has very nasty failure
modes.

Coal, oil and gas have very nasty /normal/ operating modes.

Windmills and tidal are better, /when/ they are available.

Given the presumption that cars will go electric in the
foreseeable future, what will happen when there\'s almost
zero wind power in the UK for a week? Nuclear would be
well matched to that.

(Rule of thumb from some gridwatch data: wind power supplies

X% of its peak power for X% of the time, i.e. 3 days/year
it is <1% of peak)

There is *no* other way we know to generate the energy we need. All the
windmill nonsense has led us into the current energy crisis.

Rubbish.At least in Australia, solar farms and windmills are the cheapest
source of power and utility generators won\'t invest in any other. At the
moment they need fast-turn-on gas-fired back-up to cope with windless nights
(which don\'t happen often) but the utilities are buying grid-scale batteries,
and the government is reworking the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme to
throw in a lot of pumped storage.

They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost
of keeping other types of plant available for when they are
unavailable for days on end.

IMHO that is disingenuous. When accountants have applied
similar \"reasoning\" to companies, they have closed useful
companies and even industries.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 7:38:55 PM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:
.... The only suppliers operating on a sound financial basis in the
UK at present have either nuclear or hydro as well as gas generating
capacity in their portfolio and are cross subsidising the loss making
retail arm from that. Industry is screaming blue murder they pay full
price.

This is quickly becoming a worldwide disaster, after decades of
playing with subsidized windmills, rooftops and other nonsense instead
of building enough nuclear what else could we expect. In Bulgaria, they
are \"building\" a second nuclear plant for over 30 years now, must have
spent zillions on \"consulting\" to practically zero results, other than
ongoing wrestling who is to build it. Consequently an energy crisis.

So you think nuclear is the solution to the energy problem other than the
fact that it is prohibitively expensive to build it?

In the UK the present nuclear generation plant being built is not going
to return the profit the money bags expected. So in the future the UK
government is going to allow them to pass all risk to the rate payers and
they can plan and build nuclear projects as inefficiently as they wish!

Yes, what a grand idea!

It has been made too expensive, this is true. Not because it is inherently
expensive though. Because it is regulated (which it should be for obvious
reasons) it has become a convenient cow to milk by plenty of people who
contribute nothing to society but milking that cow. My estimate is that
about 80% of the cost goes there. IOW the problem with nuclear is only
social.

Chernobyl and Fukushima suggests otherwise. Nuclear has very nasty failure
modes.

Coal, oil and gas have very nasty /normal/ operating modes.

CO2 emission is nasty, and it is built in. The failure modes are big fires when the fuel stores catch on fire, but the mess isn\'t still nasty after 100,000 years. Even the CO2 problem is self-curing - the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

went away of it\'s own accord, though it did take a while.

Windmills and tidal are better, /when/ they are available.

Given the presumption that cars will go electric in the
foreseeable future, what will happen when there\'s almost
zero wind power in the UK for a week? Nuclear would be
well matched to that.

The nice thing about electric cars is that when everybody is using them, their batteries could deliver something three times the capacity of the whole grid (though only for a couple of hours). Day/night alternation from solar power isn\'t a problem. The short answer is that solar and windmills need to offer quite a lot of excess capacity to cope with worst case situations. In Australia the plan seems to be to use that excess capacity to make electrolytic hydrogen, liquify it and ship it off in tanker loads to South Korea and Japan. It\'s a thermodynamic nonsense, but it keeps the investors happy.

> >(Rule of thumb from some gridwatch data: wind power supplies X% of its peak power for X% of the time, i.e. 3 days/year it is <1% of peak).

So wind power isn\'t the whole answer.

There is *no* other way we know to generate the energy we need. All the
windmill nonsense has led us into the current energy crisis.

Rubbish.At least in Australia, solar farms and windmills are the cheapest
source of power and utility generators won\'t invest in any other. At the
moment they need fast-turn-on gas-fired back-up to cope with windless nights
(which don\'t happen often) but the utilities are buying grid-scale batteries,
and the government is reworking the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme to
throw in a lot of pumped storage.

They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost of keeping other types of plant available for when they are unavailable for days on end.

There are \"proponents\" like that, but the Australian utility companies are currently relying on the \"legacy\" generating systems, which do include a few fast-start gas-turbine generators, which run on natural gas at the moment, but would run just as happily on hydrogen. Batteries and pumped hydro deliver about 85% of the energy you use to charge them, while hydrogen only returns about 25%, but you can store a great deal of it.

> IMHO that is disingenuous. When accountants have applied similar \"reasoning\" to companies, they have closed useful companies and even industries.

The UK has accountants like the US has lawyers. They do need to be kept under control, and are even less likely to understand why than lawyers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 26/01/22 09:54, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 7:38:55 PM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:
.... The only suppliers operating on a sound financial basis in
the UK at present have either nuclear or hydro as well as gas
generating capacity in their portfolio and are cross subsidising
the loss making retail arm from that. Industry is screaming blue
murder they pay full price.

This is quickly becoming a worldwide disaster, after decades of
playing with subsidized windmills, rooftops and other nonsense
instead of building enough nuclear what else could we expect. In
Bulgaria, they are \"building\" a second nuclear plant for over 30
years now, must have spent zillions on \"consulting\" to practically
zero results, other than ongoing wrestling who is to build it.
Consequently an energy crisis.

So you think nuclear is the solution to the energy problem other than
the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to build it?

In the UK the present nuclear generation plant being built is not
going to return the profit the money bags expected. So in the future
the UK government is going to allow them to pass all risk to the rate
payers and they can plan and build nuclear projects as inefficiently
as they wish!

Yes, what a grand idea!

It has been made too expensive, this is true. Not because it is
inherently expensive though. Because it is regulated (which it should
be for obvious reasons) it has become a convenient cow to milk by
plenty of people who contribute nothing to society but milking that
cow. My estimate is that about 80% of the cost goes there. IOW the
problem with nuclear is only social.

Chernobyl and Fukushima suggests otherwise. Nuclear has very nasty
failure modes.

Coal, oil and gas have very nasty /normal/ operating modes.

CO2 emission is nasty, and it is built in. The failure modes are big fires
when the fuel stores catch on fire, but the mess isn\'t still nasty after
100,000 years. Even the CO2 problem is self-curing - the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

went away of it\'s own accord, though it did take a while.

Windmills and tidal are better, /when/ they are available.

Given the presumption that cars will go electric in the foreseeable future,
what will happen when there\'s almost zero wind power in the UK for a week?
Nuclear would be well matched to that.

The nice thing about electric cars is that when everybody is using them,
their batteries could deliver something three times the capacity of the whole
grid (though only for a couple of hours).

I\'d be \"disappointed\" if I had left my car charging, I had to
drive 200 miles (or uphill), and that it was only 50% charged.

Day/night alternation from solar
power isn\'t a problem. The short answer is that solar and windmills need to
offer quite a lot of excess capacity to cope with worst case situations. In
Australia the plan seems to be to use that excess capacity to make
electrolytic hydrogen, liquify it and ship it off in tanker loads to South
Korea and Japan. It\'s a thermodynamic nonsense, but it keeps the investors
happy.

Large scale storage would be a game-changer in the UK. That
would make someone as rich as Croesus.

(Rule of thumb from some gridwatch data: wind power supplies X% of its
peak power for X% of the time, i.e. 3 days/year it is <1% of peak).

So wind power isn\'t the whole answer.

Of course, but then nothing is; diversity is good.

My objection is to those that ignore it and stupidly
(or worse) quote the generating capacity as 27% of peak
as if that was the only necessary number.

There is *no* other way we know to generate the energy we need. All
the windmill nonsense has led us into the current energy crisis.

Rubbish.At least in Australia, solar farms and windmills are the
cheapest source of power and utility generators won\'t invest in any
other. At the moment they need fast-turn-on gas-fired back-up to cope
with windless nights (which don\'t happen often) but the utilities are
buying grid-scale batteries, and the government is reworking the Snowy
Mountains hydroelectric scheme to throw in a lot of pumped storage.

They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost of keeping
other types of plant available for when they are unavailable for days on
end.

There are \"proponents\" like that, but the Australian utility companies are
currently relying on the \"legacy\" generating systems, which do include a few
fast-start gas-turbine generators, which run on natural gas at the moment,
but would run just as happily on hydrogen. Batteries and pumped hydro deliver
about 85% of the energy you use to charge them, while hydrogen only returns
about 25%, but you can store a great deal of it.

I wish there was more capacity for pumped hydro here. As you know,
there isn\'t much possibility in S England and the Netherlands!

IMHO that is disingenuous. When accountants have applied similar
\"reasoning\" to companies, they have closed useful companies and even
industries.
The UK has accountants like the US has lawyers. They do need to be kept under
control, and are even less likely to understand why than lawyers.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:38:55 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:
.... The only suppliers operating on a sound financial basis in the
UK at present have either nuclear or hydro as well as gas generating
capacity in their portfolio and are cross subsidising the loss making
retail arm from that. Industry is screaming blue murder they pay full
price.

This is quickly becoming a worldwide disaster, after decades of
playing with subsidized windmills, rooftops and other nonsense instead
of building enough nuclear what else could we expect. In Bulgaria, they
are \"building\" a second nuclear plant for over 30 years now, must have
spent zillions on \"consulting\" to practically zero results, other than
ongoing wrestling who is to build it. Consequently an energy crisis.

So you think nuclear is the solution to the energy problem other than the
fact that it is prohibitively expensive to build it?

In the UK the present nuclear generation plant being built is not going
to return the profit the money bags expected. So in the future the UK
government is going to allow them to pass all risk to the rate payers and
they can plan and build nuclear projects as inefficiently as they wish!

Yes, what a grand idea!

It has been made too expensive, this is true. Not because it is inherently
expensive though. Because it is regulated (which it should be for obvious
reasons) it has become a convenient cow to milk by plenty of people who
contribute nothing to society but milking that cow. My estimate is that
about 80% of the cost goes there. IOW the problem with nuclear is only
social.

Chernobyl and Fukushima suggests otherwise. Nuclear has very nasty failure
modes.
Coal, oil and gas have very nasty /normal/ operating modes.

Windmills and tidal are better, /when/ they are available.

Given the presumption that cars will go electric in the
foreseeable future, what will happen when there\'s almost
zero wind power in the UK for a week? Nuclear would be
well matched to that.

People keep babbling about how good nuclear is, but it is also not dispatchable. Demand varies a great deal during a single day as well as from day to day. Nuclear can\'t cope with that. That\'s why they refer to it as baseload. Even the French only use about 70% nuclear. While they have some reactors that can adapt during a daily cycle, they adjust slowly (to prevent Xenon poisoning). Because the cost of nuclear is mostly from the capital and other fixed costs, when run a lower power levels the effective cost his higher. Nukes are normally run flat out to make cheaper electricity.

Then there is the cost in general. While ancient nuke plants are more cost effective due to the capital investment having been amortized, new ones are *hugely* expensive and produce the most expensive electricity we have. In the US one new construction project was axed because of the huge cost overruns. In the UK a project underway has seen massive cost overruns and huge schedule delays. The French seem to be pretty bad a building nuclear reactors on schedule and under budget... same as everyone else.

No, if nuclear is the energy source for the future, what do we do until that future arrives in 15 years or more?

(Rule of thumb from some gridwatch data: wind power supplies
X% of its peak power for X% of the time, i.e. 3 days/year
it is <1% of peak)
There is *no* other way we know to generate the energy we need. All the
windmill nonsense has led us into the current energy crisis.

Rubbish.At least in Australia, solar farms and windmills are the cheapest
source of power and utility generators won\'t invest in any other. At the
moment they need fast-turn-on gas-fired back-up to cope with windless nights
(which don\'t happen often) but the utilities are buying grid-scale batteries,
and the government is reworking the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme to
throw in a lot of pumped storage.
They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost
of keeping other types of plant available for when they are
unavailable for days on end.

Hasn\'t that cost already been paid for? Do people factor in the cost of the supplementary power to add to nuclear? Well, they do when it comes to a free market and peak rates go through the roof! I think someone in this group posted a link to show what the local utilities pay for power at peak times and it is astronomical because of the need for peaking plants that run for such a short time because nuclear can not be ramped up and down.

IMHO that is disingenuous. When accountants have applied
similar \"reasoning\" to companies, they have closed useful
companies and even industries.

Yup, and we still don\'t factor in the cost of waste disposal in electricity rates from nuclear and they keep running. I wonder how they manage that? Oh, yeah, federal subsidies.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:28:13 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 26/01/22 09:54, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 7:38:55 PM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:
.... The only suppliers operating on a sound financial basis in
the UK at present have either nuclear or hydro as well as gas
generating capacity in their portfolio and are cross subsidising
the loss making retail arm from that. Industry is screaming blue
murder they pay full price.

This is quickly becoming a worldwide disaster, after decades of
playing with subsidized windmills, rooftops and other nonsense
instead of building enough nuclear what else could we expect. In
Bulgaria, they are \"building\" a second nuclear plant for over 30
years now, must have spent zillions on \"consulting\" to practically
zero results, other than ongoing wrestling who is to build it.
Consequently an energy crisis.

So you think nuclear is the solution to the energy problem other than
the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to build it?

In the UK the present nuclear generation plant being built is not
going to return the profit the money bags expected. So in the future
the UK government is going to allow them to pass all risk to the rate
payers and they can plan and build nuclear projects as inefficiently
as they wish!

Yes, what a grand idea!

It has been made too expensive, this is true. Not because it is
inherently expensive though. Because it is regulated (which it should
be for obvious reasons) it has become a convenient cow to milk by
plenty of people who contribute nothing to society but milking that
cow. My estimate is that about 80% of the cost goes there. IOW the
problem with nuclear is only social.

Chernobyl and Fukushima suggests otherwise. Nuclear has very nasty
failure modes.

Coal, oil and gas have very nasty /normal/ operating modes.

CO2 emission is nasty, and it is built in. The failure modes are big fires
when the fuel stores catch on fire, but the mess isn\'t still nasty after
100,000 years. Even the CO2 problem is self-curing - the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

went away of it\'s own accord, though it did take a while.

Windmills and tidal are better, /when/ they are available.

Given the presumption that cars will go electric in the foreseeable future,
what will happen when there\'s almost zero wind power in the UK for a week?
Nuclear would be well matched to that.

The nice thing about electric cars is that when everybody is using them,
their batteries could deliver something three times the capacity of the whole
grid (though only for a couple of hours).
I\'d be \"disappointed\" if I had left my car charging, I had to
drive 200 miles (or uphill), and that it was only 50% charged.

For every EV user who wanted to take a 200 mile trip today, there are probably 100 who are only driving the average 30 miles and don\'t need to charge at all because there is less energy from renewables. The \"EV grid\" can be the first load that is shed when less power is available, which works just like any power storage.

Day/night alternation from solar
power isn\'t a problem. The short answer is that solar and windmills need to
offer quite a lot of excess capacity to cope with worst case situations.. In
Australia the plan seems to be to use that excess capacity to make
electrolytic hydrogen, liquify it and ship it off in tanker loads to South
Korea and Japan. It\'s a thermodynamic nonsense, but it keeps the investors
happy.
Large scale storage would be a game-changer in the UK. That
would make someone as rich as Croesus.

It will be a process, not unlike building a nuclear plant taking time and money. The difference is it will be as profitable as planned from day one and probably more so.

(Rule of thumb from some gridwatch data: wind power supplies X% of its
peak power for X% of the time, i.e. 3 days/year it is <1% of peak).

So wind power isn\'t the whole answer.
Of course, but then nothing is; diversity is good.

Diversity is good until it isn\'t. The French don\'t seem to share that opinion.

My objection is to those that ignore it and stupidly
(or worse) quote the generating capacity as 27% of peak
as if that was the only necessary number.

Who has done that in this discussion? Are you arguing with phantoms?

There is *no* other way we know to generate the energy we need. All
the windmill nonsense has led us into the current energy crisis.

Rubbish.At least in Australia, solar farms and windmills are the
cheapest source of power and utility generators won\'t invest in any
other. At the moment they need fast-turn-on gas-fired back-up to cope
with windless nights (which don\'t happen often) but the utilities are
buying grid-scale batteries, and the government is reworking the Snowy
Mountains hydroelectric scheme to throw in a lot of pumped storage.

They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost of keeping
other types of plant available for when they are unavailable for days on
end.

There are \"proponents\" like that, but the Australian utility companies are
currently relying on the \"legacy\" generating systems, which do include a few
fast-start gas-turbine generators, which run on natural gas at the moment,
but would run just as happily on hydrogen. Batteries and pumped hydro deliver
about 85% of the energy you use to charge them, while hydrogen only returns
about 25%, but you can store a great deal of it.
I wish there was more capacity for pumped hydro here. As you know,
there isn\'t much possibility in S England and the Netherlands!

As has been explained many time, England is doomed, so I suppose it doesn\'t matter.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 11:13:51 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:38:55 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:

<snip>

They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost
of keeping other types of plant available for when they are
unavailable for days on end.
Hasn\'t that cost already been paid for? Do people factor in the cost of the supplementary power to add to nuclear? Well, they do when it comes to a free market and peak rates go through the roof! I think someone in this group posted a link to show what the local utilities pay for power at peak times and it is astronomical because of the need for peaking plants that run for such a short time because nuclear can not be ramped up and down.

But that \"astronomical\" cost is what pays for the peaking plants. The peaking plants only make money when they are needed, but they have to make enough money then to cover the cost of keeping them on standby all the time. The people who design the systems are well aware of this, and the people who operate the systems keep track of who gets what - as much to catch ENRON style scams where the peaks are artificially created to make extra money for particular plants, as for any other reason.

IMHO that is disingenuous. When accountants have applied
similar \"reasoning\" to companies, they have closed useful
companies and even industries.

Yup, and we still don\'t factor in the cost of waste disposal in electricity rates from nuclear and they keep running. I wonder how they manage that? Oh, yeah, federal subsidies.

Waste from nuclear plants stays dangerous for about 100,000 years, and nobody has sorted out any kind of long term repository. It\'s not so much a government subsidy as institutionalised buck-passing.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 26/01/22 12:24, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:28:13 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 09:54, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 7:38:55 PM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter
Popoff wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:
.... The only suppliers operating on a sound financial basis
in the UK at present have either nuclear or hydro as well as
gas generating capacity in their portfolio and are cross
subsidising the loss making retail arm from that. Industry is
screaming blue murder they pay full price.

This is quickly becoming a worldwide disaster, after decades
of playing with subsidized windmills, rooftops and other
nonsense instead of building enough nuclear what else could we
expect. In Bulgaria, they are \"building\" a second nuclear plant
for over 30 years now, must have spent zillions on \"consulting\"
to practically zero results, other than ongoing wrestling who
is to build it. Consequently an energy crisis.

So you think nuclear is the solution to the energy problem other
than the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to build it?

In the UK the present nuclear generation plant being built is
not going to return the profit the money bags expected. So in the
future the UK government is going to allow them to pass all risk
to the rate payers and they can plan and build nuclear projects
as inefficiently as they wish!

Yes, what a grand idea!

It has been made too expensive, this is true. Not because it is
inherently expensive though. Because it is regulated (which it
should be for obvious reasons) it has become a convenient cow to
milk by plenty of people who contribute nothing to society but
milking that cow. My estimate is that about 80% of the cost goes
there. IOW the problem with nuclear is only social.

Chernobyl and Fukushima suggests otherwise. Nuclear has very nasty
failure modes.

Coal, oil and gas have very nasty /normal/ operating modes.

CO2 emission is nasty, and it is built in. The failure modes are big
fires when the fuel stores catch on fire, but the mess isn\'t still nasty
after 100,000 years. Even the CO2 problem is self-curing - the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

went away of it\'s own accord, though it did take a while.

Windmills and tidal are better, /when/ they are available.

Given the presumption that cars will go electric in the foreseeable
future, what will happen when there\'s almost zero wind power in the UK
for a week? Nuclear would be well matched to that.

The nice thing about electric cars is that when everybody is using them,
their batteries could deliver something three times the capacity of the
whole grid (though only for a couple of hours).
I\'d be \"disappointed\" if I had left my car charging, I had to drive 200
miles (or uphill), and that it was only 50% charged.

For every EV user who wanted to take a 200 mile trip today, there are
probably 100 who are only driving the average 30 miles and don\'t need to
charge at all because there is less energy from renewables. The \"EV grid\"
can be the first load that is shed when less power is available, which works
just like any power storage.

True, but so what? If I need and expect /my/ car to be fully
charged then other people cars are irrelevant.

You are using statistics for support, not illumination (cf a
drunkard leaning against a lamppost). Statisticians drown in
lakes of average depth 3\".

Day/night alternation from solar power isn\'t a problem. The short answer
is that solar and windmills need to offer quite a lot of excess capacity
to cope with worst case situations. In Australia the plan seems to be to
use that excess capacity to make electrolytic hydrogen, liquify it and
ship it off in tanker loads to South Korea and Japan. It\'s a
thermodynamic nonsense, but it keeps the investors happy.
Large scale storage would be a game-changer in the UK. That would make
someone as rich as Croesus.

It will be a process, not unlike building a nuclear plant taking time and
money. The difference is it will be as profitable as planned from day one
and probably more so.

All you need are suitable technology or suitable geography.
Nobody has the technology (except pumped hydro), and the UK
does not have the geography.

(Rule of thumb from some gridwatch data: wind power supplies X% of
its peak power for X% of the time, i.e. 3 days/year it is <1% of
peak).

So wind power isn\'t the whole answer.
Of course, but then nothing is; diversity is good.

Diversity is good until it isn\'t. The French don\'t seem to share that
opinion.


My objection is to those that ignore it and stupidly (or worse) quote the
generating capacity as 27% of peak as if that was the only necessary
number.

Who has done that in this discussion? Are you arguing with phantoms?

Strawman question; not worth answering.

There is *no* other way we know to generate the energy we need.
All the windmill nonsense has led us into the current energy
crisis.

Rubbish.At least in Australia, solar farms and windmills are the
cheapest source of power and utility generators won\'t invest in any
other. At the moment they need fast-turn-on gas-fired back-up to
cope with windless nights (which don\'t happen often) but the
utilities are buying grid-scale batteries, and the government is
reworking the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme to throw in a lot
of pumped storage.

They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost of keeping
other types of plant available for when they are unavailable for days
on end.

There are \"proponents\" like that, but the Australian utility companies
are currently relying on the \"legacy\" generating systems, which do
include a few fast-start gas-turbine generators, which run on natural gas
at the moment, but would run just as happily on hydrogen. Batteries and
pumped hydro deliver about 85% of the energy you use to charge them,
while hydrogen only returns about 25%, but you can store a great deal of
it.
I wish there was more capacity for pumped hydro here. As you know, there
isn\'t much possibility in S England and the Netherlands!

As has been explained many time, England is doomed, so I suppose it doesn\'t
matter.

Your passive aggressive refusal to address the realities is
revealing and disappointing.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 26/01/22 12:13, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:38:55 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:
.... The only suppliers operating on a sound financial basis in
the UK at present have either nuclear or hydro as well as gas
generating capacity in their portfolio and are cross subsidising
the loss making retail arm from that. Industry is screaming blue
murder they pay full price.

This is quickly becoming a worldwide disaster, after decades of
playing with subsidized windmills, rooftops and other nonsense
instead of building enough nuclear what else could we expect. In
Bulgaria, they are \"building\" a second nuclear plant for over 30
years now, must have spent zillions on \"consulting\" to practically
zero results, other than ongoing wrestling who is to build it.
Consequently an energy crisis.

So you think nuclear is the solution to the energy problem other than
the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to build it?

In the UK the present nuclear generation plant being built is not
going to return the profit the money bags expected. So in the future
the UK government is going to allow them to pass all risk to the rate
payers and they can plan and build nuclear projects as inefficiently
as they wish!

Yes, what a grand idea!

It has been made too expensive, this is true. Not because it is
inherently expensive though. Because it is regulated (which it should
be for obvious reasons) it has become a convenient cow to milk by
plenty of people who contribute nothing to society but milking that
cow. My estimate is that about 80% of the cost goes there. IOW the
problem with nuclear is only social.

Chernobyl and Fukushima suggests otherwise. Nuclear has very nasty
failure modes.
Coal, oil and gas have very nasty /normal/ operating modes.

Windmills and tidal are better, /when/ they are available.

Given the presumption that cars will go electric in the foreseeable future,
what will happen when there\'s almost zero wind power in the UK for a week?
Nuclear would be well matched to that.

People keep babbling about how good nuclear is, but it is also not
dispatchable. Demand varies a great deal during a single day as well as from
day to day. Nuclear can\'t cope with that. That\'s why they refer to it as
baseload. Even the French only use about 70% nuclear. While they have some
reactors that can adapt during a daily cycle, they adjust slowly (to prevent
Xenon poisoning). Because the cost of nuclear is mostly from the capital and
other fixed costs, when run a lower power levels the effective cost his
higher. Nukes are normally run flat out to make cheaper electricity.

Then there is the cost in general. While ancient nuke plants are more cost
effective due to the capital investment having been amortized, new ones are
*hugely* expensive and produce the most expensive electricity we have. In
the US one new construction project was axed because of the huge cost
overruns. In the UK a project underway has seen massive cost overruns and
huge schedule delays. The French seem to be pretty bad a building nuclear
reactors on schedule and under budget... same as everyone else.

No, if nuclear is the energy source for the future, what do we do until that
future arrives in 15 years or more?


(Rule of thumb from some gridwatch data: wind power supplies
X% of its peak power for X% of the time, i.e. 3 days/year
it is <1% of peak)
There is *no* other way we know to generate the energy we need. All
the windmill nonsense has led us into the current energy crisis.

Rubbish.At least in Australia, solar farms and windmills are the
cheapest source of power and utility generators won\'t invest in any
other. At the moment they need fast-turn-on gas-fired back-up to cope
with windless nights (which don\'t happen often) but the utilities are
buying grid-scale batteries, and the government is reworking the Snowy
Mountains hydroelectric scheme to throw in a lot of pumped storage.
They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost of keeping
other types of plant available for when they are unavailable for days on
end.

Hasn\'t that cost already been paid for? Do people factor in the cost of the
supplementary power to add to nuclear? Well, they do when it comes to a free
market and peak rates go through the roof! I think someone in this group
posted a link to show what the local utilities pay for power at peak times
and it is astronomical because of the need for peaking plants that run for
such a short time because nuclear can not be ramped up and down.

Nope, it is because renewables ramp up and down uncontrollably.

The astronomical cost is because it that capacity is only
needed for /relatively/ short times. But it is /needed/ and
cannot be ignored.

Bill also made that point.

IMHO that is disingenuous. When accountants have applied similar
\"reasoning\" to companies, they have closed useful companies and even
industries.

Yup, and we still don\'t factor in the cost of waste disposal in electricity
rates from nuclear and they keep running. I wonder how they manage that?
Oh, yeah, federal subsidies.

It has to be factored in, and is.

Whether state subsidies is the right way to pay for it is
a separate issue.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:39:55 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 26/01/22 12:24, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:28:13 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 09:54, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 7:38:55 PM UTC+11, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter
Popoff wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:
.... The only suppliers operating on a sound financial basis
in the UK at present have either nuclear or hydro as well as
gas generating capacity in their portfolio and are cross
subsidising the loss making retail arm from that. Industry is
screaming blue murder they pay full price.

This is quickly becoming a worldwide disaster, after decades
of playing with subsidized windmills, rooftops and other
nonsense instead of building enough nuclear what else could we
expect. In Bulgaria, they are \"building\" a second nuclear plant
for over 30 years now, must have spent zillions on \"consulting\"
to practically zero results, other than ongoing wrestling who
is to build it. Consequently an energy crisis.

So you think nuclear is the solution to the energy problem other
than the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to build it?

In the UK the present nuclear generation plant being built is
not going to return the profit the money bags expected. So in the
future the UK government is going to allow them to pass all risk
to the rate payers and they can plan and build nuclear projects
as inefficiently as they wish!

Yes, what a grand idea!

It has been made too expensive, this is true. Not because it is
inherently expensive though. Because it is regulated (which it
should be for obvious reasons) it has become a convenient cow to
milk by plenty of people who contribute nothing to society but
milking that cow. My estimate is that about 80% of the cost goes
there. IOW the problem with nuclear is only social.

Chernobyl and Fukushima suggests otherwise. Nuclear has very nasty
failure modes.

Coal, oil and gas have very nasty /normal/ operating modes.

CO2 emission is nasty, and it is built in. The failure modes are big
fires when the fuel stores catch on fire, but the mess isn\'t still nasty
after 100,000 years. Even the CO2 problem is self-curing - the

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

went away of it\'s own accord, though it did take a while.

Windmills and tidal are better, /when/ they are available.

Given the presumption that cars will go electric in the foreseeable
future, what will happen when there\'s almost zero wind power in the UK
for a week? Nuclear would be well matched to that.

The nice thing about electric cars is that when everybody is using them,
their batteries could deliver something three times the capacity of the
whole grid (though only for a couple of hours).
I\'d be \"disappointed\" if I had left my car charging, I had to drive 200
miles (or uphill), and that it was only 50% charged.

For every EV user who wanted to take a 200 mile trip today, there are
probably 100 who are only driving the average 30 miles and don\'t need to
charge at all because there is less energy from renewables. The \"EV grid\"
can be the first load that is shed when less power is available, which works
just like any power storage.
True, but so what? If I need and expect /my/ car to be fully
charged then other people cars are irrelevant.

Why can you not see this clearly? EVs can act as dispatchable loads rather than using dispatchable generation. Every night prior to a power shortage EVs would charge and keep EVs topped off as much as anyone wants. When we have a shortage of renewable power most people can refrain from charging. As you say, those people have nothing to do with your EV. I don\'t know why you are prattling on about your single EV. If you want to drive your EV on a trip, I suggest you keep it charged! Doesn\'t that make sense?

You are using statistics for support, not illumination (cf a
drunkard leaning against a lamppost). Statisticians drown in
lakes of average depth 3\".

You appear to be willfully ignorant of what I am saying. Any 10 year old would understand at this point. Why don\'t you?

Day/night alternation from solar power isn\'t a problem. The short answer
is that solar and windmills need to offer quite a lot of excess capacity
to cope with worst case situations. In Australia the plan seems to be to
use that excess capacity to make electrolytic hydrogen, liquify it and
ship it off in tanker loads to South Korea and Japan. It\'s a
thermodynamic nonsense, but it keeps the investors happy.
Large scale storage would be a game-changer in the UK. That would make
someone as rich as Croesus.

It will be a process, not unlike building a nuclear plant taking time and
money. The difference is it will be as profitable as planned from day one
and probably more so.
All you need are suitable technology or suitable geography.
Nobody has the technology (except pumped hydro), and the UK
does not have the geography.

That\'s funny, Australia seems to be doing well without using tons of pumped hydro. Maybe you aren\'t familiar with the country that is also a continent?

(Rule of thumb from some gridwatch data: wind power supplies X% of
its peak power for X% of the time, i.e. 3 days/year it is <1% of
peak).

So wind power isn\'t the whole answer.
Of course, but then nothing is; diversity is good.

Diversity is good until it isn\'t. The French don\'t seem to share that
opinion.


My objection is to those that ignore it and stupidly (or worse) quote the
generating capacity as 27% of peak as if that was the only necessary
number.

Who has done that in this discussion? Are you arguing with phantoms?
Strawman question; not worth answering.

LOL You make an irrelevant statement about \"those that... \" and you call my statement a strawman??? Maybe you need to look up the definition.

There is *no* other way we know to generate the energy we need.
All the windmill nonsense has led us into the current energy
crisis.

Rubbish.At least in Australia, solar farms and windmills are the
cheapest source of power and utility generators won\'t invest in any
other. At the moment they need fast-turn-on gas-fired back-up to
cope with windless nights (which don\'t happen often) but the
utilities are buying grid-scale batteries, and the government is
reworking the Snowy Mountains hydroelectric scheme to throw in a lot
of pumped storage.

They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost of keeping
other types of plant available for when they are unavailable for days
on end.

There are \"proponents\" like that, but the Australian utility companies
are currently relying on the \"legacy\" generating systems, which do
include a few fast-start gas-turbine generators, which run on natural gas
at the moment, but would run just as happily on hydrogen. Batteries and
pumped hydro deliver about 85% of the energy you use to charge them,
while hydrogen only returns about 25%, but you can store a great deal of
it.
I wish there was more capacity for pumped hydro here. As you know, there
isn\'t much possibility in S England and the Netherlands!

As has been explained many time, England is doomed, so I suppose it doesn\'t
matter.
Your passive aggressive refusal to address the realities is
revealing and disappointing.

Yes, the song of the truly desperate, ad hominem. I guess you have joined Bill\'s ranks.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:47:11 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 26/01/22 12:13, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:38:55 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:
.... The only suppliers operating on a sound financial basis in
the UK at present have either nuclear or hydro as well as gas
generating capacity in their portfolio and are cross subsidising
the loss making retail arm from that. Industry is screaming blue
murder they pay full price.

This is quickly becoming a worldwide disaster, after decades of
playing with subsidized windmills, rooftops and other nonsense
instead of building enough nuclear what else could we expect. In
Bulgaria, they are \"building\" a second nuclear plant for over 30
years now, must have spent zillions on \"consulting\" to practically
zero results, other than ongoing wrestling who is to build it.
Consequently an energy crisis.

So you think nuclear is the solution to the energy problem other than
the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to build it?

In the UK the present nuclear generation plant being built is not
going to return the profit the money bags expected. So in the future
the UK government is going to allow them to pass all risk to the rate
payers and they can plan and build nuclear projects as inefficiently
as they wish!

Yes, what a grand idea!

It has been made too expensive, this is true. Not because it is
inherently expensive though. Because it is regulated (which it should
be for obvious reasons) it has become a convenient cow to milk by
plenty of people who contribute nothing to society but milking that
cow. My estimate is that about 80% of the cost goes there. IOW the
problem with nuclear is only social.

Chernobyl and Fukushima suggests otherwise. Nuclear has very nasty
failure modes.
Coal, oil and gas have very nasty /normal/ operating modes.

Windmills and tidal are better, /when/ they are available.

Given the presumption that cars will go electric in the foreseeable future,
what will happen when there\'s almost zero wind power in the UK for a week?
Nuclear would be well matched to that.

People keep babbling about how good nuclear is, but it is also not
dispatchable. Demand varies a great deal during a single day as well as from
day to day. Nuclear can\'t cope with that. That\'s why they refer to it as
baseload. Even the French only use about 70% nuclear. While they have some
reactors that can adapt during a daily cycle, they adjust slowly (to prevent
Xenon poisoning). Because the cost of nuclear is mostly from the capital and
other fixed costs, when run a lower power levels the effective cost his
higher. Nukes are normally run flat out to make cheaper electricity.

Then there is the cost in general. While ancient nuke plants are more cost
effective due to the capital investment having been amortized, new ones are
*hugely* expensive and produce the most expensive electricity we have. In
the US one new construction project was axed because of the huge cost
overruns. In the UK a project underway has seen massive cost overruns and
huge schedule delays. The French seem to be pretty bad a building nuclear
reactors on schedule and under budget... same as everyone else.

No, if nuclear is the energy source for the future, what do we do until that
future arrives in 15 years or more?


(Rule of thumb from some gridwatch data: wind power supplies
X% of its peak power for X% of the time, i.e. 3 days/year
it is <1% of peak)
There is *no* other way we know to generate the energy we need. All
the windmill nonsense has led us into the current energy crisis.

Rubbish.At least in Australia, solar farms and windmills are the
cheapest source of power and utility generators won\'t invest in any
other. At the moment they need fast-turn-on gas-fired back-up to cope
with windless nights (which don\'t happen often) but the utilities are
buying grid-scale batteries, and the government is reworking the Snowy
Mountains hydroelectric scheme to throw in a lot of pumped storage.
They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost of keeping
other types of plant available for when they are unavailable for days on
end.

Hasn\'t that cost already been paid for? Do people factor in the cost of the
supplementary power to add to nuclear? Well, they do when it comes to a free
market and peak rates go through the roof! I think someone in this group
posted a link to show what the local utilities pay for power at peak times
and it is astronomical because of the need for peaking plants that run for
such a short time because nuclear can not be ramped up and down.
Nope, it is because renewables ramp up and down uncontrollably.

Obviously you can\'t understand a simple point. In the dark ages, long before there were significant renewable generation facilities roaming the earth, peaking plants were used to handle the inherent mismatch between nuclear facilities and the variable loads. I don\'t know how to make it any more simple than that. Do... you... un-der-staaaand?

The astronomical cost is because it that capacity is only
needed for /relatively/ short times. But it is /needed/ and
cannot be ignored.

Yes, they are needed to provide the extra power that you can\'t get from nuclear plants to match the variation in loads.

Bill also made that point.

IMHO that is disingenuous. When accountants have applied similar
\"reasoning\" to companies, they have closed useful companies and even
industries.

Yup, and we still don\'t factor in the cost of waste disposal in electricity
rates from nuclear and they keep running. I wonder how they manage that?
Oh, yeah, federal subsidies.
It has to be factored in, and is.

Please show me where storage for the lifetime of the nuclear waste is being paid. I\'ve never seen that accounting. They may be paying the current bills as they come in, but those bills will be coming for many thousands of years. But we don\'t need to worry about that, do we?

Whether state subsidies is the right way to pay for it is
a separate issue.

To pay for what exactly? Please show me where anyone has done the accounting for the thousands of years of storage?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 1/26/2022 19:08, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:47:11 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 12:13, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:38:55 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 26/01/22 02:23, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 9:10:49 AM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 23:19, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, January 25, 2022 at 11:43:24 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff
wrote:
On 1/25/2022 16:27, Martin Brown wrote:
.... The only suppliers operating on a sound financial basis in
the UK at present have either nuclear or hydro as well as gas
generating capacity in their portfolio and are cross subsidising
the loss making retail arm from that. Industry is screaming blue
murder they pay full price.

This is quickly becoming a worldwide disaster, after decades of
playing with subsidized windmills, rooftops and other nonsense
instead of building enough nuclear what else could we expect. In
Bulgaria, they are \"building\" a second nuclear plant for over 30
years now, must have spent zillions on \"consulting\" to practically
zero results, other than ongoing wrestling who is to build it.
Consequently an energy crisis.

So you think nuclear is the solution to the energy problem other than
the fact that it is prohibitively expensive to build it?

In the UK the present nuclear generation plant being built is not
going to return the profit the money bags expected. So in the future
the UK government is going to allow them to pass all risk to the rate
payers and they can plan and build nuclear projects as inefficiently
as they wish!

Yes, what a grand idea!

It has been made too expensive, this is true. Not because it is
inherently expensive though. Because it is regulated (which it should
be for obvious reasons) it has become a convenient cow to milk by
plenty of people who contribute nothing to society but milking that
cow. My estimate is that about 80% of the cost goes there. IOW the
problem with nuclear is only social.

Chernobyl and Fukushima suggests otherwise. Nuclear has very nasty
failure modes.
Coal, oil and gas have very nasty /normal/ operating modes.

Windmills and tidal are better, /when/ they are available.

Given the presumption that cars will go electric in the foreseeable future,
what will happen when there\'s almost zero wind power in the UK for a week?
Nuclear would be well matched to that.

People keep babbling about how good nuclear is, but it is also not
dispatchable. Demand varies a great deal during a single day as well as from
day to day. Nuclear can\'t cope with that. That\'s why they refer to it as
baseload. Even the French only use about 70% nuclear. While they have some
reactors that can adapt during a daily cycle, they adjust slowly (to prevent
Xenon poisoning). Because the cost of nuclear is mostly from the capital and
other fixed costs, when run a lower power levels the effective cost his
higher. Nukes are normally run flat out to make cheaper electricity.

Then there is the cost in general. While ancient nuke plants are more cost
effective due to the capital investment having been amortized, new ones are
*hugely* expensive and produce the most expensive electricity we have. In
the US one new construction project was axed because of the huge cost
overruns. In the UK a project underway has seen massive cost overruns and
huge schedule delays. The French seem to be pretty bad a building nuclear
reactors on schedule and under budget... same as everyone else.

No, if nuclear is the energy source for the future, what do we do until that
future arrives in 15 years or more?


(Rule of thumb from some gridwatch data: wind power supplies
X% of its peak power for X% of the time, i.e. 3 days/year
it is <1% of peak)
There is *no* other way we know to generate the energy we need. All
the windmill nonsense has led us into the current energy crisis.

Rubbish.At least in Australia, solar farms and windmills are the
cheapest source of power and utility generators won\'t invest in any
other. At the moment they need fast-turn-on gas-fired back-up to cope
with windless nights (which don\'t happen often) but the utilities are
buying grid-scale batteries, and the government is reworking the Snowy
Mountains hydroelectric scheme to throw in a lot of pumped storage.
They are cheap, but their proponents don\'t include the cost of keeping
other types of plant available for when they are unavailable for days on
end.

Hasn\'t that cost already been paid for? Do people factor in the cost of the
supplementary power to add to nuclear? Well, they do when it comes to a free
market and peak rates go through the roof! I think someone in this group
posted a link to show what the local utilities pay for power at peak times
and it is astronomical because of the need for peaking plants that run for
such a short time because nuclear can not be ramped up and down.
Nope, it is because renewables ramp up and down uncontrollably.

Obviously you can\'t understand a simple point. In the dark ages, long before there were significant renewable generation facilities roaming the earth, peaking plants were used to handle the inherent mismatch between nuclear facilities and the variable loads. I don\'t know how to make it any more simple than that. Do... you... un-der-staaaand?


The astronomical cost is because it that capacity is only
needed for /relatively/ short times. But it is /needed/ and
cannot be ignored.

Yes, they are needed to provide the extra power that you can\'t get from nuclear plants to match the variation in loads.


Bill also made that point.

IMHO that is disingenuous. When accountants have applied similar
\"reasoning\" to companies, they have closed useful companies and even
industries.

Yup, and we still don\'t factor in the cost of waste disposal in electricity
rates from nuclear and they keep running. I wonder how they manage that?
Oh, yeah, federal subsidies.
It has to be factored in, and is.

Please show me where storage for the lifetime of the nuclear waste is being paid. I\'ve never seen that accounting. They may be paying the current bills as they come in, but those bills will be coming for many thousands of years. But we don\'t need to worry about that, do we?


Whether state subsidies is the right way to pay for it is
a separate issue.

To pay for what exactly? Please show me where anyone has done the accounting for the thousands of years of storage?

Oh come on, be the first anti-nuclear activist to accept the reality
before all lights go out because of all the wasteful toying with
windmills and the like.
They have had now 3 decades to prove themselves - and the result of
that experiment is the energy crisis. Where is the electricity if
they were the solution, the energy crisis is getting from bad to worse
by the day. Then Putin will turn off the gas for the EU in midwinter
and guess what happens *then*.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:17:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:

Oh come on, be the first anti-nuclear activist to accept the reality
before all lights go out because of all the wasteful toying with
windmills and the like.
They have had now 3 decades to prove themselves - and the result of
that experiment is the energy crisis. Where is the electricity if
they were the solution, the energy crisis is getting from bad to worse
by the day. Then Putin will turn off the gas for the EU in midwinter
and guess what happens *then*.

Interesting how you avoid addressing the issue of nuclear waste, or any other issue we\'ve discussed for that matter. Maybe when Putin cuts off the gas and the EU goes to nuclear, in a few decades that it will take to make that conversion, you can get Putin to take your waste and they can store it next to Chernobyl? Russia will be hurting for money after a couple of decades of not selling gas or oil. They can cook dinner over the waste! You\'ll have to get them to promise not to extract dangerous radionuclides that can be used in dirty bombs.

Yeah, no problema!

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 1/26/2022 21:58, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:17:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
Oh come on, be the first anti-nuclear activist to accept the reality
before all lights go out because of all the wasteful toying with
windmills and the like.
They have had now 3 decades to prove themselves - and the result of
that experiment is the energy crisis. Where is the electricity if
they were the solution, the energy crisis is getting from bad to worse
by the day. Then Putin will turn off the gas for the EU in midwinter
and guess what happens *then*.

Interesting how you avoid addressing the issue of nuclear waste, or any other issue we\'ve discussed for that matter. Maybe when Putin cuts off the gas and the EU goes to nuclear, in a few decades that it will take to make that conversion, you can get Putin to take your waste and they can store it next to Chernobyl? Russia will be hurting for money after a couple of decades of not selling gas or oil. They can cook dinner over the waste! You\'ll have to get them to promise not to extract dangerous radionuclides that can be used in dirty bombs.

Yeah, no problema!

The nuclear waste is the last resort of the antinuclear
activists, clearly meanwhile you know there is nothing
else to cling to.
And the fact is that the talk about nuclear waste is
a non-issue made up by the anti nuclear propaganda which has
been around for many decades.
Jerry Cohen was suggesting to dump it at some deep place at sea,
which could be done of course, it can dissipate slowly enough and do
nothing worth a discussion.
But the fact is the waste is also a valuable resource so they don\'t
dump it, propaganda is one thing decision making is another.

Until humanity manages fusion fission is the only option it has
to generate energy so the lights stay on.
Antinuclear scaremongering is a fact of life of course, with very
few of the activists doing it not for profit but just out of
misguided good intentions. *Very* few, I don\'t think you are
one of them, you must have interests in some windmill or rooftop
or battery buffering thing or sort of. Do you?

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:50:02 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:

On 1/26/2022 21:58, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:17:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
Oh come on, be the first anti-nuclear activist to accept the reality
before all lights go out because of all the wasteful toying with
windmills and the like.
They have had now 3 decades to prove themselves - and the result of
that experiment is the energy crisis. Where is the electricity if
they were the solution, the energy crisis is getting from bad to worse
by the day. Then Putin will turn off the gas for the EU in midwinter
and guess what happens *then*.

Interesting how you avoid addressing the issue of nuclear waste, or any other issue we\'ve discussed for that matter. Maybe when Putin cuts off the gas and the EU goes to nuclear, in a few decades that it will take to make that conversion, you can get Putin to take your waste and they can store it next to Chernobyl? Russia will be hurting for money after a couple of decades of not selling gas or oil. They can cook dinner over the waste! You\'ll have to get them to promise not to extract dangerous radionuclides that can be used in dirty bombs.

Yeah, no problema!

The nuclear waste is the last resort of the antinuclear
activists, clearly meanwhile you know there is nothing
else to cling to.
And the fact is that the talk about nuclear waste is
a non-issue made up by the anti nuclear propaganda which has
been around for many decades.
Jerry Cohen was suggesting to dump it at some deep place at sea,
which could be done of course, it can dissipate slowly enough and do
nothing worth a discussion.
But the fact is the waste is also a valuable resource so they don\'t
dump it, propaganda is one thing decision making is another.

I like that. Don\'t get rid of it. As a valuable resource we only need to hang onto it until the market ripens. LOL I haven\'t had a laugh like that all day!

Until humanity manages fusion fission is the only option it has
to generate energy so the lights stay on.
Antinuclear scaremongering is a fact of life of course, with very
few of the activists doing it not for profit but just out of
misguided good intentions. *Very* few, I don\'t think you are
one of them, you must have interests in some windmill or rooftop
or battery buffering thing or sort of. Do you?

Ok, no more scare mongering. Let\'s build nuclear power plants. We\'ll let you build the next one. Pony up!

Oh, don\'t worry. Your investment will be paid back in 10 or 20 years... if the plant gets built in that time frame. So it might take 30 or 40 years to get paid back, if ever.

Oh well. Glad it\'s your money.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 1/26/2022 23:09, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:50:02 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 21:58, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:17:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
Oh come on, be the first anti-nuclear activist to accept the reality
before all lights go out because of all the wasteful toying with
windmills and the like.
They have had now 3 decades to prove themselves - and the result of
that experiment is the energy crisis. Where is the electricity if
they were the solution, the energy crisis is getting from bad to worse
by the day. Then Putin will turn off the gas for the EU in midwinter
and guess what happens *then*.

Interesting how you avoid addressing the issue of nuclear waste, or any other issue we\'ve discussed for that matter. Maybe when Putin cuts off the gas and the EU goes to nuclear, in a few decades that it will take to make that conversion, you can get Putin to take your waste and they can store it next to Chernobyl? Russia will be hurting for money after a couple of decades of not selling gas or oil. They can cook dinner over the waste! You\'ll have to get them to promise not to extract dangerous radionuclides that can be used in dirty bombs.

Yeah, no problema!

The nuclear waste is the last resort of the antinuclear
activists, clearly meanwhile you know there is nothing
else to cling to.
And the fact is that the talk about nuclear waste is
a non-issue made up by the anti nuclear propaganda which has
been around for many decades.
Jerry Cohen was suggesting to dump it at some deep place at sea,
which could be done of course, it can dissipate slowly enough and do
nothing worth a discussion.
But the fact is the waste is also a valuable resource so they don\'t
dump it, propaganda is one thing decision making is another.

I like that. Don\'t get rid of it. As a valuable resource we only need to hang onto it until the market ripens. LOL I haven\'t had a laugh like that all day!

It is because you are not educated on the matter past what
you have been fed by the media. People have had the same laugh
not so long ago when told the Earth was not flat.

Until humanity manages fusion fission is the only option it has
to generate energy so the lights stay on.
Antinuclear scaremongering is a fact of life of course, with very
few of the activists doing it not for profit but just out of
misguided good intentions. *Very* few, I don\'t think you are
one of them, you must have interests in some windmill or rooftop
or battery buffering thing or sort of. Do you?

Ok, no more scare mongering. Let\'s build nuclear power plants. We\'ll let you build the next one. Pony up!

Oh, don\'t worry. Your investment will be paid back in 10 or 20 years... if the plant gets built in that time frame. So it might take 30 or 40 years to get paid back, if ever.

Oh well. Glad it\'s your money.

It is a simple question. You being evasive answers it of course.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:22:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:

On 1/26/2022 23:09, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:50:02 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 21:58, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:17:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
Oh come on, be the first anti-nuclear activist to accept the reality
before all lights go out because of all the wasteful toying with
windmills and the like.
They have had now 3 decades to prove themselves - and the result of
that experiment is the energy crisis. Where is the electricity if
they were the solution, the energy crisis is getting from bad to worse
by the day. Then Putin will turn off the gas for the EU in midwinter
and guess what happens *then*.

Interesting how you avoid addressing the issue of nuclear waste, or any other issue we\'ve discussed for that matter. Maybe when Putin cuts off the gas and the EU goes to nuclear, in a few decades that it will take to make that conversion, you can get Putin to take your waste and they can store it next to Chernobyl? Russia will be hurting for money after a couple of decades of not selling gas or oil. They can cook dinner over the waste! You\'ll have to get them to promise not to extract dangerous radionuclides that can be used in dirty bombs.

Yeah, no problema!

The nuclear waste is the last resort of the antinuclear
activists, clearly meanwhile you know there is nothing
else to cling to.
And the fact is that the talk about nuclear waste is
a non-issue made up by the anti nuclear propaganda which has
been around for many decades.
Jerry Cohen was suggesting to dump it at some deep place at sea,
which could be done of course, it can dissipate slowly enough and do
nothing worth a discussion.
But the fact is the waste is also a valuable resource so they don\'t
dump it, propaganda is one thing decision making is another.

I like that. Don\'t get rid of it. As a valuable resource we only need to hang onto it until the market ripens. LOL I haven\'t had a laugh like that all day!
It is because you are not educated on the matter past what
you have been fed by the media. People have had the same laugh
not so long ago when told the Earth was not flat.


Until humanity manages fusion fission is the only option it has
to generate energy so the lights stay on.
Antinuclear scaremongering is a fact of life of course, with very
few of the activists doing it not for profit but just out of
misguided good intentions. *Very* few, I don\'t think you are
one of them, you must have interests in some windmill or rooftop
or battery buffering thing or sort of. Do you?

Ok, no more scare mongering. Let\'s build nuclear power plants. We\'ll let you build the next one. Pony up!

Oh, don\'t worry. Your investment will be paid back in 10 or 20 years... if the plant gets built in that time frame. So it might take 30 or 40 years to get paid back, if ever.

Oh well. Glad it\'s your money.

It is a simple question. You being evasive answers it of course.

You mean whether I have investments in wind or solar power? It is an irrelevant question. We can discuss the facts or you can ignore the inconvenient truths.

I think it funny that by participating in a discussion in sed you consider me to be an \"activist\". This is a very round about way to use an ad hominem attack.

So do you want to discuss the facts or do you want to evade and dismiss the facts? Are you willing to invest in the next nuclear plant?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Dimiter_Popoff]

On 1/26/2022 23:46, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:22:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 23:09, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:50:02 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 21:58, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:17:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
Oh come on, be the first anti-nuclear activist to accept the reality
before all lights go out because of all the wasteful toying with
windmills and the like.
They have had now 3 decades to prove themselves - and the result of
that experiment is the energy crisis. Where is the electricity if
they were the solution, the energy crisis is getting from bad to worse
by the day. Then Putin will turn off the gas for the EU in midwinter
and guess what happens *then*.

Interesting how you avoid addressing the issue of nuclear waste, or any other issue we\'ve discussed for that matter. Maybe when Putin cuts off the gas and the EU goes to nuclear, in a few decades that it will take to make that conversion, you can get Putin to take your waste and they can store it next to Chernobyl? Russia will be hurting for money after a couple of decades of not selling gas or oil. They can cook dinner over the waste! You\'ll have to get them to promise not to extract dangerous radionuclides that can be used in dirty bombs.

Yeah, no problema!

The nuclear waste is the last resort of the antinuclear
activists, clearly meanwhile you know there is nothing
else to cling to.
And the fact is that the talk about nuclear waste is
a non-issue made up by the anti nuclear propaganda which has
been around for many decades.
Jerry Cohen was suggesting to dump it at some deep place at sea,
which could be done of course, it can dissipate slowly enough and do
nothing worth a discussion.
But the fact is the waste is also a valuable resource so they don\'t
dump it, propaganda is one thing decision making is another.

I like that. Don\'t get rid of it. As a valuable resource we only need to hang onto it until the market ripens. LOL I haven\'t had a laugh like that all day!
It is because you are not educated on the matter past what
you have been fed by the media. People have had the same laugh
not so long ago when told the Earth was not flat.


Until humanity manages fusion fission is the only option it has
to generate energy so the lights stay on.
Antinuclear scaremongering is a fact of life of course, with very
few of the activists doing it not for profit but just out of
misguided good intentions. *Very* few, I don\'t think you are
one of them, you must have interests in some windmill or rooftop
or battery buffering thing or sort of. Do you?

Ok, no more scare mongering. Let\'s build nuclear power plants. We\'ll let you build the next one. Pony up!

Oh, don\'t worry. Your investment will be paid back in 10 or 20 years... if the plant gets built in that time frame. So it might take 30 or 40 years to get paid back, if ever.

Oh well. Glad it\'s your money.

It is a simple question. You being evasive answers it of course.

You mean whether I have investments in wind or solar power? It is an irrelevant question. We can discuss the facts or you can ignore the inconvenient truths.

I think it funny that by participating in a discussion in sed you consider me to be an \"activist\". This is a very round about way to use an ad hominem attack.

So do you want to discuss the facts or do you want to evade and dismiss the facts? Are you willing to invest in the next nuclear plant?

So you are yet another anti-nuclear activist doing it for profit.
Which is OK, it just has to be made clear in a public discussion.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:14:27 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:

On 1/26/2022 23:46, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:22:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 23:09, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:50:02 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 21:58, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:17:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
Oh come on, be the first anti-nuclear activist to accept the reality
before all lights go out because of all the wasteful toying with
windmills and the like.
They have had now 3 decades to prove themselves - and the result of
that experiment is the energy crisis. Where is the electricity if
they were the solution, the energy crisis is getting from bad to worse
by the day. Then Putin will turn off the gas for the EU in midwinter
and guess what happens *then*.

Interesting how you avoid addressing the issue of nuclear waste, or any other issue we\'ve discussed for that matter. Maybe when Putin cuts off the gas and the EU goes to nuclear, in a few decades that it will take to make that conversion, you can get Putin to take your waste and they can store it next to Chernobyl? Russia will be hurting for money after a couple of decades of not selling gas or oil. They can cook dinner over the waste! You\'ll have to get them to promise not to extract dangerous radionuclides that can be used in dirty bombs.

Yeah, no problema!

The nuclear waste is the last resort of the antinuclear
activists, clearly meanwhile you know there is nothing
else to cling to.
And the fact is that the talk about nuclear waste is
a non-issue made up by the anti nuclear propaganda which has
been around for many decades.
Jerry Cohen was suggesting to dump it at some deep place at sea,
which could be done of course, it can dissipate slowly enough and do
nothing worth a discussion.
But the fact is the waste is also a valuable resource so they don\'t
dump it, propaganda is one thing decision making is another.

I like that. Don\'t get rid of it. As a valuable resource we only need to hang onto it until the market ripens. LOL I haven\'t had a laugh like that all day!
It is because you are not educated on the matter past what
you have been fed by the media. People have had the same laugh
not so long ago when told the Earth was not flat.


Until humanity manages fusion fission is the only option it has
to generate energy so the lights stay on.
Antinuclear scaremongering is a fact of life of course, with very
few of the activists doing it not for profit but just out of
misguided good intentions. *Very* few, I don\'t think you are
one of them, you must have interests in some windmill or rooftop
or battery buffering thing or sort of. Do you?

Ok, no more scare mongering. Let\'s build nuclear power plants. We\'ll let you build the next one. Pony up!

Oh, don\'t worry. Your investment will be paid back in 10 or 20 years.... if the plant gets built in that time frame. So it might take 30 or 40 years to get paid back, if ever.

Oh well. Glad it\'s your money.

It is a simple question. You being evasive answers it of course.

You mean whether I have investments in wind or solar power? It is an irrelevant question. We can discuss the facts or you can ignore the inconvenient truths.

I think it funny that by participating in a discussion in sed you consider me to be an \"activist\". This is a very round about way to use an ad hominem attack.

So do you want to discuss the facts or do you want to evade and dismiss the facts? Are you willing to invest in the next nuclear plant?

So you are yet another anti-nuclear activist doing it for profit.
Which is OK, it just has to be made clear in a public discussion.

As I thought. You can\'t discuss the facts, so ad hominem. Ok. I guess that shows just how weak your arguments really are.

BTW, have you stop beating your wife?

--

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

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 26/01/22 22:27, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:14:27 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 23:46, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:22:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 23:09, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:50:02 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 21:58, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:17:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
Oh come on, be the first anti-nuclear activist to accept the reality
before all lights go out because of all the wasteful toying with
windmills and the like.
They have had now 3 decades to prove themselves - and the result of
that experiment is the energy crisis. Where is the electricity if
they were the solution, the energy crisis is getting from bad to worse
by the day. Then Putin will turn off the gas for the EU in midwinter
and guess what happens *then*.

Interesting how you avoid addressing the issue of nuclear waste, or any other issue we\'ve discussed for that matter. Maybe when Putin cuts off the gas and the EU goes to nuclear, in a few decades that it will take to make that conversion, you can get Putin to take your waste and they can store it next to Chernobyl? Russia will be hurting for money after a couple of decades of not selling gas or oil. They can cook dinner over the waste! You\'ll have to get them to promise not to extract dangerous radionuclides that can be used in dirty bombs.

Yeah, no problema!

The nuclear waste is the last resort of the antinuclear
activists, clearly meanwhile you know there is nothing
else to cling to.
And the fact is that the talk about nuclear waste is
a non-issue made up by the anti nuclear propaganda which has
been around for many decades.
Jerry Cohen was suggesting to dump it at some deep place at sea,
which could be done of course, it can dissipate slowly enough and do
nothing worth a discussion.
But the fact is the waste is also a valuable resource so they don\'t
dump it, propaganda is one thing decision making is another.

I like that. Don\'t get rid of it. As a valuable resource we only need to hang onto it until the market ripens. LOL I haven\'t had a laugh like that all day!
It is because you are not educated on the matter past what
you have been fed by the media. People have had the same laugh
not so long ago when told the Earth was not flat.


Until humanity manages fusion fission is the only option it has
to generate energy so the lights stay on.
Antinuclear scaremongering is a fact of life of course, with very
few of the activists doing it not for profit but just out of
misguided good intentions. *Very* few, I don\'t think you are
one of them, you must have interests in some windmill or rooftop
or battery buffering thing or sort of. Do you?

Ok, no more scare mongering. Let\'s build nuclear power plants. We\'ll let you build the next one. Pony up!

Oh, don\'t worry. Your investment will be paid back in 10 or 20 years... if the plant gets built in that time frame. So it might take 30 or 40 years to get paid back, if ever.

Oh well. Glad it\'s your money.

It is a simple question. You being evasive answers it of course.

You mean whether I have investments in wind or solar power? It is an irrelevant question. We can discuss the facts or you can ignore the inconvenient truths.

I think it funny that by participating in a discussion in sed you consider me to be an \"activist\". This is a very round about way to use an ad hominem attack.

So do you want to discuss the facts or do you want to evade and dismiss the facts? Are you willing to invest in the next nuclear plant?

So you are yet another anti-nuclear activist doing it for profit.
Which is OK, it just has to be made clear in a public discussion.

As I thought. You can\'t discuss the facts, so ad hominem. Ok. I guess that shows just how weak your arguments really are.

BTW, have you stop beating your wife?

He is trying to clarify your position, and you are being evasive.

That is /not/ an ad hominem attack.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 7:35:41 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 26/01/22 22:27, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 6:14:27 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 23:46, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 5:22:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 23:09, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 4:50:02 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 1/26/2022 21:58, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, January 26, 2022 at 1:17:18 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
Oh come on, be the first anti-nuclear activist to accept the reality
before all lights go out because of all the wasteful toying with
windmills and the like.
They have had now 3 decades to prove themselves - and the result of
that experiment is the energy crisis. Where is the electricity if
they were the solution, the energy crisis is getting from bad to worse
by the day. Then Putin will turn off the gas for the EU in midwinter
and guess what happens *then*.

Interesting how you avoid addressing the issue of nuclear waste, or any other issue we\'ve discussed for that matter. Maybe when Putin cuts off the gas and the EU goes to nuclear, in a few decades that it will take to make that conversion, you can get Putin to take your waste and they can store it next to Chernobyl? Russia will be hurting for money after a couple of decades of not selling gas or oil. They can cook dinner over the waste! You\'ll have to get them to promise not to extract dangerous radionuclides that can be used in dirty bombs.

Yeah, no problema!

The nuclear waste is the last resort of the antinuclear
activists, clearly meanwhile you know there is nothing
else to cling to.
And the fact is that the talk about nuclear waste is
a non-issue made up by the anti nuclear propaganda which has
been around for many decades.
Jerry Cohen was suggesting to dump it at some deep place at sea,
which could be done of course, it can dissipate slowly enough and do
nothing worth a discussion.
But the fact is the waste is also a valuable resource so they don\'t
dump it, propaganda is one thing decision making is another.

I like that. Don\'t get rid of it. As a valuable resource we only need to hang onto it until the market ripens. LOL I haven\'t had a laugh like that all day!
It is because you are not educated on the matter past what
you have been fed by the media. People have had the same laugh
not so long ago when told the Earth was not flat.


Until humanity manages fusion fission is the only option it has
to generate energy so the lights stay on.
Antinuclear scaremongering is a fact of life of course, with very
few of the activists doing it not for profit but just out of
misguided good intentions. *Very* few, I don\'t think you are
one of them, you must have interests in some windmill or rooftop
or battery buffering thing or sort of. Do you?

Ok, no more scare mongering. Let\'s build nuclear power plants. We\'ll let you build the next one. Pony up!

Oh, don\'t worry. Your investment will be paid back in 10 or 20 years... if the plant gets built in that time frame. So it might take 30 or 40 years to get paid back, if ever.

Oh well. Glad it\'s your money.

It is a simple question. You being evasive answers it of course.

You mean whether I have investments in wind or solar power? It is an irrelevant question. We can discuss the facts or you can ignore the inconvenient truths.

I think it funny that by participating in a discussion in sed you consider me to be an \"activist\". This is a very round about way to use an ad hominem attack.

So do you want to discuss the facts or do you want to evade and dismiss the facts? Are you willing to invest in the next nuclear plant?

So you are yet another anti-nuclear activist doing it for profit.
Which is OK, it just has to be made clear in a public discussion.

As I thought. You can\'t discuss the facts, so ad hominem. Ok. I guess that shows just how weak your arguments really are.

BTW, have you stop beating your wife?
He is trying to clarify your position, and you are being evasive.

That is /not/ an ad hominem attack.

No, he\'s not asking for any relevant clarification. He is trying to get me to answer and irrelevant question. Then he says \"you are yet another anti-nuclear activist doing it for profit\". That is ad hominem by definition.

I\'m happy to discuss any relevant facts. So far there has been no response to my assertions of the issues of building new nuclear generation plants. There is a reason why they are not being built in the western world. We have learned they are not good ideas and are very expensive.

How much solar can be built for $20,000,000,000.00? That\'s around 1 GW in a nuclear plant or around 20 GW in a solar or wind facility. Ok, cut that renewable capacity in half and add storage with the other $10,000,000,000.00. Yeah, I know which I want to see built. 1 GW of the most expensive energy around, or 10 GW of safer renewable energy with storage.

--

Rick C.

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