OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote in
news:qmgja9$7gp$1@dont-email.me:

Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

I keep wondering why Germany is being misled into giving up
nuclear power. Something is wrong, that's obvious. Not saying it
portends something else, but it could.

[...]

At the time, the world, Germany included, was well underway to
re-embrace nuclear power, to reduce CO2 emission and all that.

And then Fukushima happened.

And then Fukushima happened! The "Fukushima disaster" that killed
a grand total of one person. Nevermind the fact the tsunami killed
20,000 (plus an astronomical amount of property damage).

And had it been built on a 30 meter construction pad as opposed to
the 10 meter criminal level cutback version, it would probably still
be operting without even a glitch from that day.

 

<TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:6a0075f3-d211-45af-a96b-
373bf854b01b@googlegroups.com:

In the US, they've
been blocked by the usual tree hugging extremists.

There are currently two nuclear power plants under construction in
the US.

You forgot your sig, Mr. Wrong.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 6:47:03 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

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

X-Received: by 2002:a37:6d06:: with SMTP id i6mr4171083qkc.266.1568914315976; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9dcf:: with SMTP id g198mr4100592qke.269.1568914315878; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!o24no313012qtl.0!news-out.google.com!x7ni1036qtf.0!nntp.google.com!o24no313002qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 10:31:55 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <b3ac040c-e488-4ce1-9ec8-6bcbb2124bd4 googlegroups.com
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=50.205.158.211; posting-account=I-_H_woAAAA9zzro6crtEpUAyIvzd19b
NNTP-Posting-Host: 50.205.158.211
References: <qlqqi9$83j$1 dont-email.me> <qlqr92$10ke$1 gioia.aioe.org> <qlqs4h$14rf$1 gioia.aioe.org> <ddca1f3b-4b88-435b-af62-5de5a17e86d9 googlegroups.com> <f6e9a26d-c3f2-4447-ad1c-8e2a29f5f84f googlegroups.com> <b3ac040c-e488-4ce1-9ec8-6bcbb2124bd4 googlegroups.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <0f124212-50cf-45be-a46f-c0c1229efdfa googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear power?
From: Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit gmail.com
Injection-Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 17:31:55 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Lines: 72
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:565460

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 12:31:08 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 10:02:21 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 1:33:08 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote
:
On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 10:55:19 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wro
te:
On 17/09/2019 15:40, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

snip

France is the only country with serious investment in nuclear power
now.
They have nearly 75% nuclear generation and export it to other EU c
ountries.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/
countries-a-f/france.aspx

Of course, not all their nuclear reactors are working

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/10/french-energy-firm-edf-warns-of-faulty-
welding-in-its-nuclear-reactors.html

at one point twenty of them were shut down because steel castings insid
e the reactor turned out to be defective.

Trader4's source - a nuclear industry trade association - doesn't talk
about this.

Depends on how you define 'serious investment". Sure, France has nuc
lear
contributing the highest percentage, but I would not call that the on
ly
metric. China currently has the most nukes under development and whi
le
France gets 70% of their power from nukes, there are other countries
that
generate 40 to 50%. And the US generates more than twice the output
of
France. There are over 50 new nukes under construction around the wo
rld.

Trder4's nuclear trade association lists fifty as "under construction".
The examples in the US and the UK all seem to be way behind schedule and way over budget, and likely to be cancelled, but that's not the kind of information a trade association puts out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Wow, you finally figured out how to use google yourself, eh? Thanks
for confirming for all that what I posted, that there were over 50 nukes
under construction, was correct. It's your OPINION that because some
are behind schedule, they will be cancelled. Of course if it was some
lib govt project, which are ALWAYS behind schedule and over cost, why
then there would be no such issue there of course.

It is not a far leap to say some will be canceled. They canceled the reactors in South Carolina because of the massive overruns. If a company expects to spend $2 billion on a reactor and before they've committed the full $2 billion they find out it's going to be $5 or $6 billion, that's not a hard decision to make if they don't have the money. Heck, the South Carolina project implosion took down the Westinghouse nuclear company with it.

Yeah, it's very likely some of those 50 projects will also implode under the weight of the ballooning costs.

Nuclear has proved to be cost-effective. It's also saved millions of lives.

The problem is that nuclear isn't cost-effective, in the sense of being cheap enough to compete with windmills and solar cells - neither of which have the potential to kill people, and consequently don't have to be over-engineered to keep the population happy.

Medical isotopes produced in nuclear reactors that aren't being used for power generation may have prolonged a million lives, but that's a completely different issue.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 7:24:14 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:6a0075f3-d211-45af-a96b-
373bf854b01b@googlegroups.com:

In the US, they've
been blocked by the usual tree hugging extremists.

There are currently two nuclear power plants under construction in
the US.

You forgot your sig, Mr. Wrong.

Wow! This came in just today. "More Delays for UK’s Hinkley Point Nuclear Plant as Offshore Wind Costs Drop

Offshore wind is now bidding in at less than half the cost of EDF’s delayed, overbudget and controversial nuclear plant."

So it's not just the US. Europe seems to be unable to build nuclear at affordable prices. Money is just money... but they need to actually finish the durn things at some point. Every year completion seems to be delayed another 12 months.

I guess it's a good thing we subsidized wind and solar to get them where they are now so they are in a position to take over when nuclear fails us.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 8:17:15 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 7:24:14 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:6a0075f3-d211-45af-a96b-
373bf854b01b@googlegroups.com:

In the US, they've
been blocked by the usual tree hugging extremists.

There are currently two nuclear power plants under construction in
the US.

You forgot your sig, Mr. Wrong.

Wow! This came in just today. "More Delays for UK’s Hinkley Point Nuclear Plant as Offshore Wind Costs Drop

Offshore wind is now bidding in at less than half the cost of EDF’s delayed, overbudget and controversial nuclear plant."

So it's not just the US. Europe seems to be unable to build nuclear at affordable prices. Money is just money... but they need to actually finish the durn things at some point. Every year completion seems to be delayed another 12 months.

I guess it's a good thing we subsidized wind and solar to get them where they are now so they are in a position to take over when nuclear fails us.

Here's some good news...

"South Africa’s utility Eskom is preparing to launch a tender for 1..4 gigawatt-hours of battery storage that will need to be installed by December 2021.

The large-scale energy storage tender, the first of its kind in the country and in Africa as a whole, will be split into two phases, with an initial 200 megawatts/800 megawatt-hours of capacity to be built by December 2020, an Eskom official said.

This first phase of implementation will be divided into four packages, and will be followed by 160 megawatts/640 megawatt-hours to be installed a year later, Prince Moyo, general manager for power delivery engineering at Eskom, said during a Wednesday webinar.

The second phase will include 60 megawatts of solar to be integrated with the battery storage, along with an asset performance management system."

Do you think they will be delayed by five or ten years? It would be hard to stretch a two year project anywhere near that far when nuclear is not involved.

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 6:56:08 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

-
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:133a:: with SMTP id p26mr953645qkj.317.1568943509161; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:ac8:350e:: with SMTP id y14mr454680qtb.310.1568943509011; Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:38:29 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!feeder.usenetexpress.com!feeder-in1.iad1.usenetexpress.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!o24no1538919qtl.0!news-out.google.com!x7ni1074qtf.0!nntp.google.com!o24no1538912qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2019 18:38:28 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4ed0169b-7b60-415a-858a-8cd5b6689c41 googlegroups.com
Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=27.32.144.80; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
NNTP-Posting-Host: 27.32.144.80
References: <qlqqi9$83j$1 dont-email.me> <qlqr92$10ke$1 gioia.aioe.org> <e7VgF.383512$cG6.261323 fx34.iad> <4ed0169b-7b60-415a-858a-8cd5b6689c41 googlegroups.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9b593ba7-5a3c-4928-bcde-7a9b5650d4c4 googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: OT: Why is Germany so (apparently) stupid to give up nuclear power?
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman ieee.org
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2019 01:38:29 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 32
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:565499

On Friday, September 20, 2019 at 10:52:50 AM UTC+10, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 8:33:19 PM UTC-4, Robert Baer wrote:
Jeroen Belleman wrote:
John Doe wrote:
I keep wondering why Germany is being misled into giving up nuclear
power. Something is wrong, that's obvious. Not saying it portends
something else, but it could.

[...]

At the time, the world, Germany included, was well underway to
re-embrace nuclear power, to reduce CO2 emission and all that.

And then Fukushima happened.

Jeroen Belleman
...and the CO2 emission problem DID NOT CHANGE; ditto regarding GW.
Hell, even Santa did not change his protocol...
Ditto regarding our favorite ball players.
Ditto regarding astronomers.
Or the weather reporters.
Or the way circuit boards are designed and made.
GET IT?
Not related.

We get some of the strangest posts from otherwise normal sounding people.

What's up with that?

Robert Baer is a baer of very little brain. He rarely sounds normal.

The so-called Fukushima disaster killed a grand total of one person.
The massive tsunami along with some man-made problems that caused
the nuclear reactor to fail killed 20,000 people (plus an
astronomical amount of property damage). But the antinuclear freaks
say nothing about that while whining about the "Fukushima disaster".

Why should they? The reactors aren't working any more, and their failure forced the evacuation of the surrounding area.

One day a giant meteor will slam into Earth, sending us perilously
out of orbit.

The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs didn't send the earth "out of orbit"..

John Doe doesn't understand astrophysics either.

The antinuclear freaks will be screaming "The nuclear
power plants are failing!"

Only if they are as stupid and ill-informed as John Doe.

> One of the many Australian trolls on USENET...

John Doe thinks that he isn't a troll, and thinks that anybody who points out that he is has to be a troll. As I said, he's stupid and ill-informed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

> >

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:32:40 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:91ee0d62-1521-
41f2-824b-ef22ebf599ec@googlegroups.com:

to take over when nuclear fails us.

How is nuclear going to fail us?

Do you not read anything I post? The two reactors in South Carolina have failed us. Building reactors that produce some of the most expensive electricity in the world which still doesn't address the issues of safety and disposal of fuel at even higher costs is failing us. There are some number of reactors currently underway that will never be finished and others that eventually be built, years over schedule and billions of dollars/pounds/francs over budget. In any other industry this would simply be the end of the industry. Yet the nuclear industry seems to still be supported by a few who insist it is a good, clean, affordable technology when it isn't any of the above.

--

Rick C.

++- Get 2,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:b8bba22e-55ba-41db-9473-c970b83e55fa@googlegroups.com:

Stupid Americans have this delusion that they won WW2 for the rest
of the world.

No. SOME stupid Americans think various bent versions of that.

History states that it was an allied effort.

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:91ee0d62-1521-
41f2-824b-ef22ebf599ec@googlegroups.com:

> to take over when nuclear fails us.

How is nuclear going to fail us?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:15:36 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:03:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 4:47:03 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
Nuclear has proved to be cost-effective. It's also saved millions of lives.

Millions? Wow, who are they? I would like to talk to some of them.

Trouble is nuclear is getting very, very expensive to build and the facilities are taking longer and longer to build. The capital to construct these plants end up being three or four times the original planned cost by the time they are completed. The schedules are taking many times longer as well. Utilities are in business to make money. They aren't going to take such huge financial risks to invest in a project which has a limited potential to make money.

If nuclear is cost effective, why have they built so few in recent years? Because nuclear is the most expensive form of energy we have today.

Fifty under construction around the world right now.

Fifty that haven't been cancelled yet. The nuclear power trade association happily lists projects that are in deep trouble as "under construction".

It's called whistling in the dark.

> In the US, they've been blocked by the usual tree hugging extremists.

Trader4 knows what he wants to believe, and doesn't bother fidning supporting evidence for his silly ideas, probably because it doesn't actually exist..

> You know, the same ones that tell us the world will end soon from CO2,

None of them suggest that rising CO2 levels will "end the world". They all agree that rising CO2 levels are creating problems, and if it went on rising for long enough human civilisation might be in trouble, and we could have a population crash.

> but won't allow nuclear, because it's too risky.

It's not "not allowed" but merely closely regulated. As an energy source to replace burning fossil carbon, nuclear power was never a contender. The plants are too expensive and take much too long to build.

They've thrown so many roadblocks into
any attempts to build plants, that you'd have to be crazy to try.
Endless lawsuits, envirommental impact reviews, who would put $25 mil
or a $100 mil into that, only to see Warren or Bernie win and you're
screwed? And even without them, you're screwed at the state level.
If the govt got that BS out of the way, they could be built cost effectively.

Love Canal was an enormous success.

And the same bunch also block windmills, solar farms, even an Amazon
headquarters in NYC, with similar stupid reasoning.

It may look similar to Trader4, whose intellectual capacity is remarkably restricted.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 11:45:38 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:09:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:04:08 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:48:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 12:59:14 PM UTC+10, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 02:21:33 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote in
newsm9goe9e5ka37evl5maavps4lrchdebtj3@4ax.com:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:48:03 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:721db584-4fca-48b8- b937-724662570d02@googlegroups.com:

Per the example above, the cost of the grid then
gets divided up over less customers,

<snip>

But if you had a working brain, you wouldn't have posted this trivial observation in the first place. It was always irrelevant, which pretty much sums you up too.


It's not irrelevant. Solar homes are getting a free ride, being
subsidized by their neighbors, including the poor, who don't have solar,
because solar homes aren't paying for the grid. Half of the poor families
electric bill is for the grid. And I'm not the one that
brought up 'subsidies', Rick did, complaining about "subsidies" he alleges
oil companies are getting, when he didn't even understand what he claims
are subsidies are not subsidies at all. The solar example sure is.

Long live the truth!

Trader4 doesn't have a clue.

There is a problem with roof-top solar generation and the grid - at least in Australia - but it doesn't look much like the problem Trader4 thinks we need to address.

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/grid-voltage-rise-solar/

The answer probably involves adding home batteries to roof-top solar, and an internet of things connection to let the inverter know when the grid wants it to pump power into the grid or into - or out of - the battery.

Setting up an equitable payment system is going to be one of the problems that needs solving, but Trader4's moans that one part of the current system isn't there yet aren't a constructive part of the debate.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:6601b96d-102e-43dd-be7e-18c8202f5463@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 11:45:38 PM UTC+10, Whoey
Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:09:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:04:08 AM UTC+10, Whoey
Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:48:23 AM UTC-4, Bill
Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 12:59:14 PM UTC+10,
k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 02:21:33 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote in
newsm9goe9e5ka37evl5maavps4lrchdebtj3@4ax.com:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:48:03 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:721db584-4fca-48b8-
b937-724662570d02@googlegroups.com:

Per the example above, the cost of the grid then
gets divided up over less customers,

snip


But if you had a working brain, you wouldn't have posted this
trivial observation in the first place. It was always
irrelevant, which pretty much sums you up too.


It's not irrelevant. Solar homes are getting a free ride, being
subsidized by their neighbors, including the poor, who don't have
solar, because solar homes aren't paying for the grid. Half of
the poor families electric bill is for the grid. And I'm not
the one that brought up 'subsidies', Rick did, complaining about
"subsidies" he alleges oil companies are getting, when he didn't
even understand what he claims are subsidies are not subsidies at
all. The solar example sure is.

Long live the truth!

Trader4 doesn't have a clue.

There is a problem with roof-top solar generation and the grid -
at least in Australia - but it doesn't look much like the problem
Trader4 thinks we need to address.

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/grid-voltage-rise-solar/

The answer probably involves adding home batteries to roof-top
solar, and an internet of things connection to let the inverter
know when the grid wants it to pump power into the grid or into -
or out of - the battery.

Setting up an equitable payment system is going to be one of the
problems that needs solving, but Trader4's moans that one part of
the current system isn't there yet aren't a constructive part of
the debate.

+1 on each and every point.

I like the battery idea.

I stated ten years ago (or more) that big companies in the US using
now considered 'modern' hot water systems in their workplace by
placing HWOD units instead of water heater tanks in their restrooms
and kitchens could save millions and relieve the grid by further
adding battery storage systems and powering said HWOD units with the
battery pack, and charging said packs at night when demand is low
(and rates). And think about also that say six bathrooms are up with
four sinks each. Say two are being used. Instead of the on till
ready 3kW water tank, we now have 12 1.2kW units all popping onto the
grid at once. at each location in the vast industrial parks of
America. They jump on... they jump off... the current spikes up,
then down. I mean no more than a big industrial machine but still...
Putting it on batteries and refilling those at night would be a great
way to take drops from the daytime load bucket.

It is more maint, and more labor intensive and high initial cost
and money to build it into current systems. But still.

But those HWOD units will work on DC no problem. Even better.

But whom do I tell? I could cut down on megawatts of (daytime)
consumption, but those companies would have to get on board. Maybe
that would be a good use for a Tesla battery.

Anyway... my idea... years ago... could save millions of bucks
and redistribute workloads nicely...

As usual... goes ignored.

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:45:38 AM UTC-7, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:09:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

One example we've seen here is Clifford Heath, whose bill does include a fixed amount to cover his use of the grid.

I'm talking about most of the USA, stupid.

Pointing at a particular locale would be an indication of a sincere interest
in how the problem is dealt with in that locale. Waffling words, indicating 'most of the USA'
means you might ignore any and all specific evidence.

Ignoring evidence is akin to unusual unawareness of what's happening. It's the
definition of 'stupid' or 'stupor'.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

John Doe wrote:

Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

John Doe wrote:

I keep wondering why Germany is being misled into giving up nuclear
power. Something is wrong, that's obvious. Not saying it portends
something else, but it could.

[...]
At the time, the world, Germany included, was well underway to
re-embrace nuclear power, to reduce CO2 emission and all that.

And then Fukushima happened.

And then Fukushima happened! The "Fukushima disaster" that killed a
grand total of one person. Nevermind the fact the tsunami killed 20,000
(plus an astronomical amount of property damage).

That may be so, but it's still the reason Germany suddenly
changed course. Public opinion is finicky, you know?

Jeroen Belleman

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:05:32 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:15:36 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

Endless lawsuits, envirommental impact reviews, who would put $25 mil
or a $100 mil into that, only to see Warren or Bernie win and you're
screwed? And even without them, you're screwed at the state level.
If the govt got that BS out of the way, they could be built cost effectively.

LOL!!! You are so out of touch with the issues involved. Dominion Power has spent over half a billion dollars getting a single new reactor approved. That puts all the tree huggers on the side line, they are done, out of the picture.

Reality check: that much money for APPROVAL, means that some impediments (not
sure it's right to say 'tree huggers') really ARE very much in the picture. The
'roadblocks' theory of Whoey Louie is credible.

Delay is the killer on some of these projects; if you had a flexible design that fit a number
of sites, and tried making multiples of the same design, it wouldn't be a

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 6:05:32 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:15:36 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 5:03:06 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 4:47:03 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
Nuclear has proved to be cost-effective. It's also saved millions of lives.

Millions? Wow, who are they? I would like to talk to some of them.

Trouble is nuclear is getting very, very expensive to build and the facilities are taking longer and longer to build. The capital to construct these plants end up being three or four times the original planned cost by the time they are completed. The schedules are taking many times longer as well. Utilities are in business to make money. They aren't going to take such huge financial risks to invest in a project which has a limited potential to make money.

If nuclear is cost effective, why have they built so few in recent years? Because nuclear is the most expensive form of energy we have today.

Fifty under construction around the world right now. In the US, they've
been blocked by the usual tree hugging extremists. You know, the same
ones that tell us the world will end soon from CO2, but won't allow
nuclear, because it's too risky. They've thrown so many roadblocks into
any attempts to build plants, that you'd have to be crazy to try.

Too bad the environmentalists didn't stop the construction of the two new reactors at the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station before they spend $9 Billion digging holes that will now be filled back in. Why? Because of massive cost overruns and schedule delays the plants are now abandoned and Westinghouse Electric Company has declared bankruptcy.

I didn't see a damn word in any write up about it that mentioned environmentalists. Not one. They did talk about mismanagement, lack of oversight and just plain greed!

So, following that logic, because many of the solar companies, eg Solyndra,
that Obama and the libs provided loan guarantees to went bankrupt because
of mismanagement, lack of oversight and greed, we should just give up on
solar too. Should abandon all cities too, because Detroit, Stockton CA,
San Bernardino CA, etc went bankrupt.

The real irony is that the $9 billion tab will be picked up by the electric customers because in order to promote nuclear in the state, legislators passed a bill allowing the utility to pass on the costs to the customers as they accrued rather than as part of the cost of generating the electricity the plants would produce.


Endless lawsuits, envirommental impact reviews, who would put $25 mil
or a $100 mil into that, only to see Warren or Bernie win and you're
screwed? And even without them, you're screwed at the state level.
If the govt got that BS out of the way, they could be built cost effectively.

LOL!!! You are so out of touch with the issues involved. Dominion Power has spent over half a billion dollars getting a single new reactor approved. That puts all the tree huggers on the side line, they are done, out of the picture.

Thanks for agreeing with my point. Half a billion dollars to get a single
new reactor approved.

Like with South Carolina the approval expenses are now being paid for by the rate payers without a single kWh of electricity being generated. It will be up to Dominion to decide if they want to throw the dice to actually build the plant. Word on the street is it will cost $19 billion to build this single reactor. Yeah, we are going to have to run out of gas entirely before this project becomes viable.


And the same bunch also block windmills, solar farms, even an Amazon
headquarters in NYC, with similar stupid reasoning.

I'd be willing to bet its not the same group. There was a lot of resistance to the solar project here this past year. Virtually every person who spoke against the project lived right by it and would be impacted by this project. I was just looking at information about this and found information on the noise level during construction. They pile drive the supports for the solar panels and the noise level would be at the upper range of conversation for days at a time. That's nothing like the roar of a jet engine or a police siren, but it would be constant for days!!! Yeah, I can see why neighbors would be opposed. Not stupid reasoning, self interests which is what we all do.

--

Thanks for providing a good example to prove my point.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 7:24:14 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:6a0075f3-d211-45af-a96b-
373bf854b01b@googlegroups.com:

In the US, they've
been blocked by the usual tree hugging extremists.

There are currently two nuclear power plants under construction in
the US.

You forgot your sig, Mr. Wrong.

That doesn't meant that a lot of other ones were blocked, that it's almost
impossible to overcome all the irrational people who block them, that
enormous amounts have to be spent trying to get approval, only to have
them turned down because of irrational opposition, so few try. You know,
the same people who are telling us we only have a decade to lessen CO2
emissions or the planet faces extinction, yet nuclear power is too
dangerous. Go figure.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 9:12:07 AM UTC-4, Martin Brown wrote:

On 26/09/2019 02:34, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:b8bba22e-55ba-41db-9473-c970b83e55fa@googlegroups.com:

Stupid Americans have this delusion that they won WW2 for the rest
of the world.

No. SOME stupid Americans think various bent versions of that.

History states that it was an allied effort.

At the outset of WWII the US media were actively campaigning for Hitler
and *against* the UK. Most of the rich news magnates were big Hitler
fans as were the extreme wings of the Republican party see:

http://www.worldwar2facts.org/franklin-roosevelt.html#keeping-the-united-states-out-of-the-war

The US ambassador to London, Joseph Kennedy was a waste of space.

http://ww2today.com/27th-september-1940-kennedy-the-british-are-a-lost-cause

Joe Kennedy was a Republican? Besides Kennedy, a Democrat, the prominent
names that come to mind are Henry Ford, a Democrat and Charles Lindbergh,
who AFAIK didn't have a party affiliation, he just liked to make excuses
for Nazis. So, I think your attempt to try to pin sympathy for the NAzis
on extreme Republicans is mostly BS.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:41:12 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:32:40 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:91ee0d62-1521-
41f2-824b-ef22ebf599ec@googlegroups.com:

to take over when nuclear fails us.

How is nuclear going to fail us?

Do you not read anything I post? The two reactors in South Carolina have failed us.

Of course no solar company has never "failed us".....


The complete list of faltering or bankrupt green-energy companies:

Evergreen Solar ($25 million)*
SpectraWatt ($500,000)*
Solyndra ($535 million)*
Beacon Power ($43 million)*
Nevada Geothermal ($98.5 million)
SunPower ($1.2 billion)
First Solar ($1.46 billion)
Babcock and Brown ($178 million)
EnerDel’s subsidiary Ener1 ($118.5 million)*
Amonix ($5.9 million)
Fisker Automotive ($529 million)
Abound Solar ($400 million)*
A123 Systems ($279 million)*
Willard and Kelsey Solar Group ($700,981)*
Johnson Controls ($299 million)
Brightsource ($1.6 billion)
ECOtality ($126.2 million)
Raser Technologies ($33 million)*
Energy Conversion Devices ($13.3 million)*
Mountain Plaza, Inc. ($2 million)*
Olsen’s Crop Service and Olsen’s Mills Acquisition Company ($10 million)*
Range Fuels ($80 million)*
Thompson River Power ($6.5 million)*
Stirling Energy Systems ($7 million)*
Azure Dynamics ($5.4 million)*
GreenVolts ($500,000)
Vestas ($50 million)
LG Chem’s subsidiary Compact Power ($151 million)
Nordic Windpower ($16 million)*
Navistar ($39 million)
Satcon ($3 million)*
Konarka Technologies Inc. ($20 million)*
Mascoma Corp. ($100 million)

*Denotes companies that have filed for bankruptcy.



And it continues.....


https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/05/19/bankruptcies-continue-in-solar-industry.aspx


Bankruptcies Continue in Solar Industry

Less than a month ago, I wrote that more bankruptcies are coming to the solar industry in 2017. This week, that prediction came true. SolarWorld, the European manufacturer of solar panels that had one of the largest manufacturing plants in the U.S., filed for insolvency. This follows Suniva's bankruptcy in April and leaves the U.S. without much non-bankrupt solar manufacturing capacity outside of First Solar's (NASDAQ:FSLR) plant in Ohio, SunPower's (NASDAQ:SPWR) pilot lines, and Tesla's (NASDAQ:TSLA) incomplete Buffalo factory.



As Homer would say, Doh!

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 12:08:57 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:6601b96d-102e-43dd-be7e-18c8202f5463@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 11:45:38 PM UTC+10, Whoey
Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 11:09:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 2:04:08 AM UTC+10, Whoey
Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:48:23 AM UTC-4, Bill
Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 12:59:14 PM UTC+10,
k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 02:21:33 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

krw@notreal.com wrote in
newsm9goe9e5ka37evl5maavps4lrchdebtj3@4ax.com:

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 00:48:03 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:721db584-4fca-48b8-
b937-724662570d02@googlegroups.com:

Per the example above, the cost of the grid then
gets divided up over less customers,

snip


But if you had a working brain, you wouldn't have posted this
trivial observation in the first place. It was always
irrelevant, which pretty much sums you up too.


It's not irrelevant. Solar homes are getting a free ride, being
subsidized by their neighbors, including the poor, who don't have
solar, because solar homes aren't paying for the grid. Half of
the poor families electric bill is for the grid. And I'm not
the one that brought up 'subsidies', Rick did, complaining about
"subsidies" he alleges oil companies are getting, when he didn't
even understand what he claims are subsidies are not subsidies at
all. The solar example sure is.

Long live the truth!

Trader4 doesn't have a clue.

There is a problem with roof-top solar generation and the grid -
at least in Australia - but it doesn't look much like the problem
Trader4 thinks we need to address.

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/grid-voltage-rise-solar/

The answer probably involves adding home batteries to roof-top
solar, and an internet of things connection to let the inverter
know when the grid wants it to pump power into the grid or into -
or out of - the battery.

Setting up an equitable payment system is going to be one of the
problems that needs solving, but Trader4's moans that one part of
the current system isn't there yet aren't a constructive part of
the debate.


+1 on each and every point.

I like the battery idea.

I stated ten years ago (or more) that big companies in the US using
now considered 'modern' hot water systems in their workplace by
placing HWOD units instead of water heater tanks in their restrooms
and kitchens could save millions and relieve the grid by further
adding battery storage systems and powering said HWOD units with the
battery pack, and charging said packs at night when demand is low
(and rates). And think about also that say six bathrooms are up with
four sinks each. Say two are being used. Instead of the on till
ready 3kW water tank, we now have 12 1.2kW units all popping onto the
grid at once. at each location in the vast industrial parks of
America. They jump on... they jump off... the current spikes up,
then down. I mean no more than a big industrial machine but still...
Putting it on batteries and refilling those at night would be a great
way to take drops from the daytime load bucket.

It is more maint, and more labor intensive and high initial cost
and money to build it into current systems. But still.

But those HWOD units will work on DC no problem. Even better.

But whom do I tell? I could cut down on megawatts of (daytime)
consumption, but those companies would have to get on board. Maybe
that would be a good use for a Tesla battery.

Anyway... my idea... years ago... could save millions of bucks
and redistribute workloads nicely...

As usual... goes ignored.

The first fallacy here is that somehow a difference in night rate
electric vs daytime electric for some restroom hot water would ever
cover the cost of all the installation and maintenance. But then since
you can't understand even the simple concept of net metering, economics
and math clearly isn't your forte.
And then there are other problems, like where to put these batteries.
I suppose we could just pile them into the stalls?


Wrong, always wrong.