Hide your sulphuric acid...

[server]

message unavailable

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 20/11/21 3:29 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 10:21:02 -0500, Ralph Mowery
rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
I let a car battery go dead because the car was not driven enough. My
best charger would not let the battery start to charge. I have an older
very simple charge that is only a transformer, diode and meter that I
hooked to the battery for about half an hour and then I could use the
better automatic charger.

I once had to use 120 VAC and a diode and a hair drier ballast
resistor to bootstrap charging a car.

Some devices with a 2-step dimmer have the necessary diode inside.

A friend was stuck with a flat battery at his cousin\'s place.
He used an old halogen lighting transformer to get going
They have called him McGyver ever since...

CH

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 20/11/21 3:29 am, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Fri, 19 Nov 2021 10:21:02 -0500, Ralph Mowery
rmowery42@charter.net> wrote:
I let a car battery go dead because the car was not driven enough. My
best charger would not let the battery start to charge. I have an older
very simple charge that is only a transformer, diode and meter that I
hooked to the battery for about half an hour and then I could use the
better automatic charger.

I once had to use 120 VAC and a diode and a hair drier ballast
resistor to bootstrap charging a car.

Some devices with a 2-step dimmer have the necessary diode inside.

A friend was stuck with a flat battery at his cousin\'s place.
He used an old halogen lighting transformer to get going
They have called him McGyver ever since...

CH

 

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Am 14.11.21 um 22:03 schrieb Michael Terrell:

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 3:36:05 PM UTC-5, legg wrote:

Relax, let Microsoft do it . . . . ;-p

That better be sarcasm. Win 10 locked up during an update yesterday. I had to reboot several times before it started tto actually do the update. It had been hung on \'restarting\' for over an hour when I did the first reboot. (It was middle of the night and I had dozed off.)

yes, I run it in a VMware machine under Linux supervision and
normally it has no internet. It is unvisible from the net side
and all it sees from the universe is the d: partition shared
with the Linux host. That has the nice effect that it does not
reboot when it thinks my computer belongs to Microsoft
and not to me.

Like every other week I let it free last Friday for an hour,
so it could do its update voodoo. Downloaded half the world,
istalled it, rebooted a lot of times, found out that the install
was not so good, uninstalled everything again, rebooted twice
as often as before.

Then I found that my screen had new hot spots; when my mouse ran
there, pictures of ugly celebrities popped up, including endless
stories of their lifes.

It took me 2 hours until my CAD machine was usable again.

Gerhard

 

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Am 14.11.21 um 22:03 schrieb Michael Terrell:

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 3:36:05 PM UTC-5, legg wrote:

Relax, let Microsoft do it . . . . ;-p

That better be sarcasm. Win 10 locked up during an update yesterday. I had to reboot several times before it started tto actually do the update. It had been hung on \'restarting\' for over an hour when I did the first reboot. (It was middle of the night and I had dozed off.)

yes, I run it in a VMware machine under Linux supervision and
normally it has no internet. It is unvisible from the net side
and all it sees from the universe is the d: partition shared
with the Linux host. That has the nice effect that it does not
reboot when it thinks my computer belongs to Microsoft
and not to me.

Like every other week I let it free last Friday for an hour,
so it could do its update voodoo. Downloaded half the world,
istalled it, rebooted a lot of times, found out that the install
was not so good, uninstalled everything again, rebooted twice
as often as before.

Then I found that my screen had new hot spots; when my mouse ran
there, pictures of ugly celebrities popped up, including endless
stories of their lifes.

It took me 2 hours until my CAD machine was usable again.

Gerhard

 

[Gerhard Hoffmann]

Am 14.11.21 um 22:03 schrieb Michael Terrell:

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 3:36:05 PM UTC-5, legg wrote:

Relax, let Microsoft do it . . . . ;-p

That better be sarcasm. Win 10 locked up during an update yesterday. I had to reboot several times before it started tto actually do the update. It had been hung on \'restarting\' for over an hour when I did the first reboot. (It was middle of the night and I had dozed off.)

yes, I run it in a VMware machine under Linux supervision and
normally it has no internet. It is unvisible from the net side
and all it sees from the universe is the d: partition shared
with the Linux host. That has the nice effect that it does not
reboot when it thinks my computer belongs to Microsoft
and not to me.

Like every other week I let it free last Friday for an hour,
so it could do its update voodoo. Downloaded half the world,
istalled it, rebooted a lot of times, found out that the install
was not so good, uninstalled everything again, rebooted twice
as often as before.

Then I found that my screen had new hot spots; when my mouse ran
there, pictures of ugly celebrities popped up, including endless
stories of their lifes.

It took me 2 hours until my CAD machine was usable again.

Gerhard

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 5:49:42 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 3:45:41 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 11:30:54 PM UTC-8, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2021-11-17, Tom Seim <sei...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey SNIPPERMAN, you are SO SELF-CONCIOUS that you have to, in your warped mind, convince yourself that your LIES really aren\'t somehow lies. News Flash: you are a FUCKING LIAR - that is what you do to in an effort to compensate for your deep inferiority complex to make yourself appear more important. You probably were bullied as a child, so now you act out as the bully. You need psycho therapy, a LOT of psycho therapy!
What\'s your problem?
Were there not enough opportunities for you to be wrong today?

If he believes it he\'s not lying.

Your claims that he\'s lying would themselves be lies, if you understood
the meaning of the the word, and basic logic, but based on your past
performance here that seems doubtful.

Hey Jasen, so if I call someone like Sloman out for posting lies then I am a liar. Got it.

Since I\'m not posting lies, this it perfectly correct, but since Tom Seim likes to think that I am, he\'s not going to admit it - or even realise that he is wrong. He\'s much too silly to realise that he can get stuff wrong.

Yeah, SNIPPERMAN, you ARE posting lies - lots of them.

So, if I called Sloman out for telling the truth then I would STILL be a liar. Got it. According to you, no matter what I say I am a liar. GOT IT!

No. You are posting falsehoods, but since you are much too silly to realise that your claims are merely self-serving nonsense, you aren\'t a liar - merely a self-deceiving fool. Since you post loads of Trump\'s lying political propaganda, you are a rather dangerous and destructive fool, but much too silly to be held responsible for any damage you do.

That\'s yet ANOTHER lie, SNIPPERMAN.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 5:49:42 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 3:45:41 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 11:30:54 PM UTC-8, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2021-11-17, Tom Seim <sei...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey SNIPPERMAN, you are SO SELF-CONCIOUS that you have to, in your warped mind, convince yourself that your LIES really aren\'t somehow lies. News Flash: you are a FUCKING LIAR - that is what you do to in an effort to compensate for your deep inferiority complex to make yourself appear more important. You probably were bullied as a child, so now you act out as the bully. You need psycho therapy, a LOT of psycho therapy!
What\'s your problem?
Were there not enough opportunities for you to be wrong today?

If he believes it he\'s not lying.

Your claims that he\'s lying would themselves be lies, if you understood
the meaning of the the word, and basic logic, but based on your past
performance here that seems doubtful.

Hey Jasen, so if I call someone like Sloman out for posting lies then I am a liar. Got it.

Since I\'m not posting lies, this it perfectly correct, but since Tom Seim likes to think that I am, he\'s not going to admit it - or even realise that he is wrong. He\'s much too silly to realise that he can get stuff wrong.

Yeah, SNIPPERMAN, you ARE posting lies - lots of them.

So, if I called Sloman out for telling the truth then I would STILL be a liar. Got it. According to you, no matter what I say I am a liar. GOT IT!

No. You are posting falsehoods, but since you are much too silly to realise that your claims are merely self-serving nonsense, you aren\'t a liar - merely a self-deceiving fool. Since you post loads of Trump\'s lying political propaganda, you are a rather dangerous and destructive fool, but much too silly to be held responsible for any damage you do.

That\'s yet ANOTHER lie, SNIPPERMAN.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 5:49:42 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Thursday, November 18, 2021 at 3:45:41 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Tuesday, November 16, 2021 at 11:30:54 PM UTC-8, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2021-11-17, Tom Seim <sei...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hey SNIPPERMAN, you are SO SELF-CONCIOUS that you have to, in your warped mind, convince yourself that your LIES really aren\'t somehow lies. News Flash: you are a FUCKING LIAR - that is what you do to in an effort to compensate for your deep inferiority complex to make yourself appear more important. You probably were bullied as a child, so now you act out as the bully. You need psycho therapy, a LOT of psycho therapy!
What\'s your problem?
Were there not enough opportunities for you to be wrong today?

If he believes it he\'s not lying.

Your claims that he\'s lying would themselves be lies, if you understood
the meaning of the the word, and basic logic, but based on your past
performance here that seems doubtful.

Hey Jasen, so if I call someone like Sloman out for posting lies then I am a liar. Got it.

Since I\'m not posting lies, this it perfectly correct, but since Tom Seim likes to think that I am, he\'s not going to admit it - or even realise that he is wrong. He\'s much too silly to realise that he can get stuff wrong.

Yeah, SNIPPERMAN, you ARE posting lies - lots of them.

So, if I called Sloman out for telling the truth then I would STILL be a liar. Got it. According to you, no matter what I say I am a liar. GOT IT!

No. You are posting falsehoods, but since you are much too silly to realise that your claims are merely self-serving nonsense, you aren\'t a liar - merely a self-deceiving fool. Since you post loads of Trump\'s lying political propaganda, you are a rather dangerous and destructive fool, but much too silly to be held responsible for any damage you do.

That\'s yet ANOTHER lie, SNIPPERMAN.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

 

[John Doe]

Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

Michael Kellett wrote:

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emmissions per capita, the UK ranks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having  a lot of nukes and
a few.
So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".
Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2
rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

Plus the fact nuclear saves lives over other viable energy sources...

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh05000e.html

\"we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84
million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent
(GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from
fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into
account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power
could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-
240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury\"

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.
Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even
now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills
and similar nonsense.

The obvious reason to promote dead-end energy sources over nuclear even
though nuclear is safer and reduces pollution... Maintain oil company
profits. Greenies are useful idiots for oil companies.

 

[John Doe]

Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

Michael Kellett wrote:

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emmissions per capita, the UK ranks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having  a lot of nukes and
a few.
So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".
Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2
rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

Plus the fact nuclear saves lives over other viable energy sources...

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/kh05000e.html

\"we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84
million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent
(GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from
fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into
account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power
could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-
240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury\"

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.
Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even
now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills
and similar nonsense.

The obvious reason to promote dead-end energy sources over nuclear even
though nuclear is safer and reduces pollution... Maintain oil company
profits. Greenies are useful idiots for oil companies.

 

[John Doe]

The foulmouthed group idiot Always Wrong rants again...

--
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: France building more nuclear reactors
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 12:47:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <smoc4b$iei$1@gioia.aioe.org
References: <smi0i0$nun$1@dont-email.me> <d31d2570-4f15-46d9-81b3-94231228c9aen@googlegroups.com> <7-6dnYbJusEpGxL8nZ2dnUU78RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smo8v9$skm$1@dont-email.me
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data=\"18898\"; posting-host=\"5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.gioia.aioe.org\"; mail-complaints-to=\"abuse@aioe.org\";
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:652327

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

On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe
wrote:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuc
lear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors -
essentially they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle
wanted France to be nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts
to admit that it was a silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emmissions per capita, the
UK ranks 44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having¶ÿ a
lot of nukes and a few.
So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".
Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in
CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

MK



Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.
Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even
now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills
and similar nonsense.


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

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

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

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

 

[John Doe]

The foulmouthed group idiot Always Wrong rants again...

--
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!aioe.org!5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.46.165.242.91.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: France building more nuclear reactors
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 12:47:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID: <smoc4b$iei$1@gioia.aioe.org
References: <smi0i0$nun$1@dont-email.me> <d31d2570-4f15-46d9-81b3-94231228c9aen@googlegroups.com> <7-6dnYbJusEpGxL8nZ2dnUU78RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smo8v9$skm$1@dont-email.me
Injection-Info: gioia.aioe.org; logging-data=\"18898\"; posting-host=\"5U2ooNuM5UP0Ynf/GmOnCg.user.gioia.aioe.org\"; mail-complaints-to=\"abuse@aioe.org\";
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:652327

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

On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe
wrote:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuc
lear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors -
essentially they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle
wanted France to be nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts
to admit that it was a silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emmissions per capita, the
UK ranks 44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having¶ÿ a
lot of nukes and a few.
So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".
Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in
CO2 rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

MK



Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.
Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even
now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills
and similar nonsense.


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

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

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

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

 

[John Doe]

Ricksy is a greeny at the same time Ricksy promotes bitcoin,
(the most idiotic massive waste of electricity).

How someone can be knowledgeable about electronics and
clueless about science is a mystery...

--
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:ad4:56a4:: with SMTP id bd4mr25631414qvb.16.1636849633686; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:328b:: with SMTP id y133mr25811223yby.233.1636849633422; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=107.77.215.69; posting-account=I-_H_woAAAA9zzro6crtEpUAyIvzd19b
NNTP-Posting-Host: 107.77.215.69
References: <smi0i0$nun$1@dont-email.me> <d31d2570-4f15-46d9-81b3-94231228c9aen@googlegroups.com> <7-6dnYbJusEpGxL8nZ2dnUU78RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smo8v9$skm$1@dont-email.me> <e9268764-86e6-4a06-9e7d-aabbed8dc0f6n@googlegroups.com> <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ae4ada98-f8f8-463c-8fba-32999177e15cn@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: France building more nuclear reactors
From: Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 00:27:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:652391

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:22:30 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 11/13/2021 14:58, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wr
ote:
On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclea
r-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially

they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be

nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts to admit that it was a

silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ran
ks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes a
nd
a few.

Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There
are quite a few ways of generating energy that don\'t involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".

Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real
cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.

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

Tell that to the Brits who are going to see rate increases because they are building horribly over budget and behind schedule nuke plants. The present fiasco is going to cost the investors who will see their return on investment cut to a fraction and so will require the UK public to take the risk of overruns on future projects. If I were the guy taking the risk, I would make sure I get the lion\'s share of the profit.


Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2

rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

As you don;t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren\'t the only
way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.

It isn\'t. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but
it isn\'t remotely true.
Of course it is. The antinuclear propaganda has been denying that for
decades and it has worked on the general public, that\'s all.

People who don\'t look at all the facts make such claims. The rest of us know the whole picture.


Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now t
he public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.

There\'s nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric
power. Like solar power, it isn\'t there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you\'ve got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it\'s easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.

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

Toying with windmills and solar will be \"practical\" only as long as the

subsidies last. They may even be practical in some areas where there is

no winter to live through; areas where you can survive without
electricity at all, that is.

You are ignoring facts here as well. The cost of wind and solar power continue to drop every year, just as Moore\'s law describes ever decreasing semiconductor features and unit costs. Clearly you can see where this trend heads and understand the implication if you just acknowledge the facts and look.

Just today I took a drive up the east coast of Puerto Rico and saw some windmills damaged in Maria which investors are repairing. Along the southern coast near Ponce there are some number of even larger windmills which either were not damaged in Maria or have been fully repaired. Puerto Rico has a significant issue with power reliability and cost. Windmills and solar are helping to deal with these problems.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Doe]

Ricksy is a greeny at the same time Ricksy promotes bitcoin,
(the most idiotic massive waste of electricity).

How someone can be knowledgeable about electronics and
clueless about science is a mystery...

--
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:ad4:56a4:: with SMTP id bd4mr25631414qvb.16.1636849633686; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:328b:: with SMTP id y133mr25811223yby.233.1636849633422; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=107.77.215.69; posting-account=I-_H_woAAAA9zzro6crtEpUAyIvzd19b
NNTP-Posting-Host: 107.77.215.69
References: <smi0i0$nun$1@dont-email.me> <d31d2570-4f15-46d9-81b3-94231228c9aen@googlegroups.com> <7-6dnYbJusEpGxL8nZ2dnUU78RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smo8v9$skm$1@dont-email.me> <e9268764-86e6-4a06-9e7d-aabbed8dc0f6n@googlegroups.com> <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ae4ada98-f8f8-463c-8fba-32999177e15cn@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: France building more nuclear reactors
From: Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 00:27:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:652391

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:22:30 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 11/13/2021 14:58, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wr
ote:
On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclea
r-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially

they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be

nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts to admit that it was a

silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ran
ks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes a
nd
a few.

Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There
are quite a few ways of generating energy that don\'t involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".

Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real
cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.

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

Tell that to the Brits who are going to see rate increases because they are building horribly over budget and behind schedule nuke plants. The present fiasco is going to cost the investors who will see their return on investment cut to a fraction and so will require the UK public to take the risk of overruns on future projects. If I were the guy taking the risk, I would make sure I get the lion\'s share of the profit.


Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2

rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

As you don;t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren\'t the only
way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.

It isn\'t. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but
it isn\'t remotely true.
Of course it is. The antinuclear propaganda has been denying that for
decades and it has worked on the general public, that\'s all.

People who don\'t look at all the facts make such claims. The rest of us know the whole picture.


Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now t
he public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.

There\'s nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric
power. Like solar power, it isn\'t there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you\'ve got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it\'s easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.

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

Toying with windmills and solar will be \"practical\" only as long as the

subsidies last. They may even be practical in some areas where there is

no winter to live through; areas where you can survive without
electricity at all, that is.

You are ignoring facts here as well. The cost of wind and solar power continue to drop every year, just as Moore\'s law describes ever decreasing semiconductor features and unit costs. Clearly you can see where this trend heads and understand the implication if you just acknowledge the facts and look.

Just today I took a drive up the east coast of Puerto Rico and saw some windmills damaged in Maria which investors are repairing. Along the southern coast near Ponce there are some number of even larger windmills which either were not damaged in Maria or have been fully repaired. Puerto Rico has a significant issue with power reliability and cost. Windmills and solar are helping to deal with these problems.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Doe]

Ricksy is a greeny at the same time Ricksy promotes bitcoin,
(the most idiotic massive waste of electricity).

How someone can be knowledgeable about electronics and
clueless about science is a mystery...

--
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:ad4:56a4:: with SMTP id bd4mr25631414qvb.16.1636849633686; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:328b:: with SMTP id y133mr25811223yby.233.1636849633422; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=107.77.215.69; posting-account=I-_H_woAAAA9zzro6crtEpUAyIvzd19b
NNTP-Posting-Host: 107.77.215.69
References: <smi0i0$nun$1@dont-email.me> <d31d2570-4f15-46d9-81b3-94231228c9aen@googlegroups.com> <7-6dnYbJusEpGxL8nZ2dnUU78RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smo8v9$skm$1@dont-email.me> <e9268764-86e6-4a06-9e7d-aabbed8dc0f6n@googlegroups.com> <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ae4ada98-f8f8-463c-8fba-32999177e15cn@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: France building more nuclear reactors
From: Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 00:27:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:652391

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:22:30 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 11/13/2021 14:58, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wr
ote:
On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclea
r-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially

they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be

nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts to admit that it was a

silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ran
ks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes a
nd
a few.

Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There
are quite a few ways of generating energy that don\'t involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".

Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real
cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.

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

Tell that to the Brits who are going to see rate increases because they are building horribly over budget and behind schedule nuke plants. The present fiasco is going to cost the investors who will see their return on investment cut to a fraction and so will require the UK public to take the risk of overruns on future projects. If I were the guy taking the risk, I would make sure I get the lion\'s share of the profit.


Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2

rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

As you don;t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren\'t the only
way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.

It isn\'t. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but
it isn\'t remotely true.
Of course it is. The antinuclear propaganda has been denying that for
decades and it has worked on the general public, that\'s all.

People who don\'t look at all the facts make such claims. The rest of us know the whole picture.


Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now t
he public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.

There\'s nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric
power. Like solar power, it isn\'t there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you\'ve got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it\'s easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.

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

Toying with windmills and solar will be \"practical\" only as long as the

subsidies last. They may even be practical in some areas where there is

no winter to live through; areas where you can survive without
electricity at all, that is.

You are ignoring facts here as well. The cost of wind and solar power continue to drop every year, just as Moore\'s law describes ever decreasing semiconductor features and unit costs. Clearly you can see where this trend heads and understand the implication if you just acknowledge the facts and look.

Just today I took a drive up the east coast of Puerto Rico and saw some windmills damaged in Maria which investors are repairing. Along the southern coast near Ponce there are some number of even larger windmills which either were not damaged in Maria or have been fully repaired. Puerto Rico has a significant issue with power reliability and cost. Windmills and solar are helping to deal with these problems.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Doe]

Ricksy is a greeny at the same time Ricksy promotes bitcoin,
(the most idiotic massive waste of electricity).

How someone can be knowledgeable about electronics and
clueless about science is a mystery...

--
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:ad4:56a4:: with SMTP id bd4mr25631414qvb.16.1636849633686; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:328b:: with SMTP id y133mr25811223yby.233.1636849633422; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!209.85.160.216.MISMATCH!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 16:27:13 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=107.77.215.69; posting-account=I-_H_woAAAA9zzro6crtEpUAyIvzd19b
NNTP-Posting-Host: 107.77.215.69
References: <smi0i0$nun$1@dont-email.me> <d31d2570-4f15-46d9-81b3-94231228c9aen@googlegroups.com> <7-6dnYbJusEpGxL8nZ2dnUU78RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <smo8v9$skm$1@dont-email.me> <e9268764-86e6-4a06-9e7d-aabbed8dc0f6n@googlegroups.com> <smoe6f$uvn$1@dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <ae4ada98-f8f8-463c-8fba-32999177e15cn@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: France building more nuclear reactors
From: Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2021 00:27:13 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:652391

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 9:22:30 AM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 11/13/2021 14:58, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wr
ote:
On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:

https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclea
r-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially

they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be

nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts to admit that it was a

silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ran
ks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes a
nd
a few.

Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There
are quite a few ways of generating energy that don\'t involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.

So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".

Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real
cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.

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

Tell that to the Brits who are going to see rate increases because they are building horribly over budget and behind schedule nuke plants. The present fiasco is going to cost the investors who will see their return on investment cut to a fraction and so will require the UK public to take the risk of overruns on future projects. If I were the guy taking the risk, I would make sure I get the lion\'s share of the profit.


Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2

rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.

As you don;t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren\'t the only
way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.

It isn\'t. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but
it isn\'t remotely true.
Of course it is. The antinuclear propaganda has been denying that for
decades and it has worked on the general public, that\'s all.

People who don\'t look at all the facts make such claims. The rest of us know the whole picture.


Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now t
he public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.

There\'s nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric
power. Like solar power, it isn\'t there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you\'ve got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it\'s easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.

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

Toying with windmills and solar will be \"practical\" only as long as the

subsidies last. They may even be practical in some areas where there is

no winter to live through; areas where you can survive without
electricity at all, that is.

You are ignoring facts here as well. The cost of wind and solar power continue to drop every year, just as Moore\'s law describes ever decreasing semiconductor features and unit costs. Clearly you can see where this trend heads and understand the implication if you just acknowledge the facts and look.

Just today I took a drive up the east coast of Puerto Rico and saw some windmills damaged in Maria which investors are repairing. Along the southern coast near Ponce there are some number of even larger windmills which either were not damaged in Maria or have been fully repaired. Puerto Rico has a significant issue with power reliability and cost. Windmills and solar are helping to deal with these problems.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Doe]

But of course the problem with building nuclear reactors has much to do with
useful idiots and their politicians. Oil companies have much clout with
strong influence over weak minds.

 

[John Doe]

But of course the problem with building nuclear reactors has much to do with
useful idiots and their politicians. Oil companies have much clout with
strong influence over weak minds.

 

[Flyguy]

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 4:58:53 AM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Saturday, November 13, 2021 at 10:53:20 PM UTC+11, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 11/13/2021 11:34, Michael Kellett wrote:
On 12/11/2021 03:22, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, November 11, 2021 at 1:52:54 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:
https://www.euronews.com/2021/11/10/france-vows-to-build-new-nuclear-reactors-to-meet-climate-goals


Lately France has been bashing us for being pansies.

That\'s so embarrassing.

France is being stupidly macho about nuclear reactors - essentially
they made a foolish investment because De Gaulle wanted France to be
nuclear power, and they\'ve never had to guts to admit that it was a
silly idea.

John Doe is silly enough to see this as a virtue.

France ranks 71 in the world for CO2 emissions per capita, the UK ranks
44. That\'s pretty much the difference between having a lot of nukes and
a few.
Or between having a lot of solar panels and windmills, and a few. There are quite a few ways of generating energy that don\'t involve emitting CO2 into the atmosphere.
So perhaps BS could explain how it\'s \"stupidly macho\".
Nuclear power is expensive, even before you start working out the real cost of disposing of long-lived radio-active waste. The original motivation for having lots of nuclear reactors was having atom bombs and nuclear powered submarines, which is a pretty macho choice. Sticking with nuclear power after it became obvious quite how expensive it was is stupid.
Some useful data here, compare how well France and Sweden do in CO2
rankings compared with less nuke enthusiastic peers.
As you don;t seem to realise, nuclear fission reactors aren\'t the only way of generating energy with emitting CO2. Sweden happens to have quite a lot of old-fashioned hydro-electric power too - apparently it is still supplying about 50% of its electric power.

Some 30 years ago I thought it would not be too long before \"they\"
get it that nuclear power is the only way we know of to make
the clean energy we need.
It isn\'t. Nuclear freaks do make this claim more or less non-stop, but it isn\'t remotely true.
Alas the anti-nuclear propaganda has been so efficient that even now the public does not get it. They keep on dreaming of windmills and similar nonsense.
There\'s nothing nonsensical about using wind-farms to generate electric power. Like solar power, it isn\'t there all the time, but grid scale storage is practical - if you\'ve got and appreciable hydro-electric generating capacity, it\'s easy enough to rework it for pumped storage, and grid-scale batteries are becoming more popular.

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

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN (they idiot who stole Bill Sloman\'s identity), what is \"stupidly macho\" are the comments you are making! Germany is BUYING a lot of France\'s nuclear-generated power after they \"stupidly\" shut down their own reactors.

What is \"stupid\" is relying on intermittent power that requires 100% fossil (like everybody\'s favorite source: COAL) or nuclear backup, or your perpetually loved blackouts. This is EXACTLY what happened this year to the UK:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertbryce/2021/10/13/europes-energy-crisis-underscores-the-dangers-of-the-proposed-clean-electricity-performance-program/?sh=4909964c473a