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

[Martin Brown]

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

Churchill's friend Korda was dragged into the US senate to defend
himself against accusations of making Hollywood films that were intended
as UK propaganda. See the paragraph under "The Power to Persuade".

https://winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/finest-hour-179/alexander-korda-churchills-man-hollywood/

He was saved from prosecution by the Japanese bombing Pearl Harbour.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:95f4b39b-72ca-4edc-a562-7ebee434f018@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:34:46 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@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.

Where did the overwhelming number of ships, aircraft, trucks,
bombs, fuel, food, etc come from? We even supplied those Russkie
commie bastards, and of course they welched and never paid us
back. Who paid to rebuild Western Europe? Yes, it was an allied
effort, but we could have won without Australia or Belgium. If
Belgium and all the European countries had proper defense, there
never would have been a war, or it would have been over in short
order without a total conflagration. Today, Europe is doing the
same thing, Europe with a couple exceptions, refuses to spend even
2% on defense, refuses to meet their NATO committments.

I never said it was a balanced effort. We did do the most and
continue to, and we never got paid back (enough).

That is why I am so against China's rise. The commie bastards are
not putting anything back, all the while the US and their allies
share every medical advance, and every infrastructure advance and
hardware too. And we provide monitary and other major assistance to
many nations around the world.

Whereas China and Russia want to steal IP and stomp around with
their missile parades as if we are all enemies. If we treated them
as they treat us and the rest of the world, we would have been at war
decades ago.

The trigger for all this was a long time ago. Back when Putin
gained office. He was the one that turned the entire Russian
governement BACK into "the old ways", and that is when they again
stepped back from democracy, all the while reaping the fruits of
playing the rest of the world into thinking they were on the right
path. Putin screwed it all up. Biggest criminal ever in recent
times. The buy/sell moves he made would have him in prison in any of
the free nations of the world.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:34:46 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@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.

Where did the overwhelming number of ships, aircraft, trucks, bombs,
fuel, food, etc come from? We even supplied those Russkie commie bastards,
and of course they welched and never paid us back. Who paid to rebuild
Western Europe? Yes, it was an allied effort, but we could have won
without Australia or Belgium. If Belgium and all the European
countries had proper defense, there never would have been a war, or it
would have been over in short order without a total conflagration.
Today, Europe is doing the same thing, Europe with a couple exceptions,
refuses to spend even 2% on defense, refuses to meet their NATO committments.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:47:19 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:34:46 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@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.

Where did the overwhelming number of ships, aircraft, trucks, bombs,
fuel, food, etc come from?

Ships apart, most of them came from Russian factories behind the Urals.

We even supplied those Russkie commie bastards,
and of course they welched and never paid us back.

They liked the trucks they got, but American tanks struck them as rubbish.

The stuff that did get shipped to Russia was welcome, but it wasn't exactly war-winning.

> Who paid to rebuild Western Europe?

The Marshall Plan was good idea, but it was more aimed at minimising Russian influence than rebuilding Europe.

Yes, it was an allied effort, but we could have won
without Australia or Belgium.

The allies might have been able to win without Australia or Belgium, but they'd have been in deep trouble without Russia.

If Belgium and all the European countries had proper defense, there never
would have been a war, or it would have been over in short order without a
total conflagration.

At the time, "proper defenses" looked like the Maginot Line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line

and we all know how well that worked, largely because it was too expensive to the job properly. Belgium and the Netherlands didn't have that kind of money.

Today, Europe is doing the same thing, Europe with a couple exceptions,
refuses to spend even 2% on defense, refuses to meet their NATO commitments.

The US spends a ridiculous amount of money with defense contractors, who spend equally ridiculous amount of money buttering up the politicians who authorise the extravagance.

Mary Kaldor nailed it back in 1981 with her book, "The Baroque Arsenal"

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/reviews/capsule-review/1981-09-01/baroque-arsenal

Complaining that Europe isn't making the same mistake works for people like Trump, who don't have to pay attention to the real world.

Historically, the top dog spent as much on defense as it's two closest rivals.

America spends as much as the next ten countries down the pecking order added together.

This isn't about defense but rather represents corporate welfare.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:279d510b-538e-47a8-b197-1445a1feb307@googlegroups.com:

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...@de
cadence.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!

How many got federal money?

 

<TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:9214eab1-e46f-47ea-9028-4de5f2c1f433@googlegroups.com:

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

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.

You are a goddamned idiot.

The hundreds of dollars per month saved would be as big as
switching to HWOD was to start with. Nice idea, but HWOD is flawed
as well, because folks stand there with it on for half a minute
before it even produces hot water, if ever. The HWOD device needs to
be closer to the point of use, and the lines need to be insulated.

But still, a properly installed DC night charge HWOD system would
absolutely pay for itself and save that company money.

But
then since you can't understand even the simple concept of net
metering, economics and math clearly isn't your forte.

Again, child... you are a goddamned idiot.

And then there are other problems, like where to put these
batteries.

You are too stupid to have any grip on any of the logistic
particulars of such a change. HOAD, dumbshit.

You are a retarded, crybaby punk wanting to place barriers to
progress and the folks whom would suggest or implement it. You take
stupid to an all new low. You sit right at the bottom of that totem
pole.

> I suppose we could just pile them into the stalls?

Stalls do not utilize hot water, you retarded piece of shit.

> Wrong, always wrong.

Your sig fits you perfectly.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 8:32:13 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie 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.

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.

No one actually made that proclamation. Your referral to it shows you aren't actually interested in discussing the facts or more importantly, you have no interest in learning anything about the matter. You don't need facts, you have already made up your mind.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 6:00:56 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

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

But those impediments are now out of the way. It's actually a bit funny that one of the court cases was about the fact that Dominion wanted to use the same water cooling reservoir but at a higher temperature. Seems that even though they built the lake as a cooling pond, it is still a public waterway (the North Anna River) so they have to keep the temperature within environmental guidelines. Instead they are opting for an air cooling tower which will make the facility *look* like a nuclear plant.

So as I have said, the environmental aspects of raising the costs and construction delays are just not there. The initial approval for the plans do have to go through more extensive scrutiny, but that is not entirely about environmental concerns and even so what's wrong to being careful about the environment?

I thought one of the reasons why we should not fear nuclear energy is because we have learned from our mistakes and the additional scrutiny both environmental and safety related are a direct result of "lessons learned", no? So we should toss that out the window?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:35:55 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:9214eab1-e46f-47ea-9028-4de5f2c1f433@googlegroups.com:

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

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.

You are a goddamned idiot.

The hundreds of dollars per month saved

Show evidence that a typical restroom would save hundreds of dollars
a month on electric used to heat hot water from your alleged difference
in energy cost at night and that any difference wouldn'be be negated
by the cost of battery storage. Most restrooms probably don't have a
total hot water bill of hundreds of dollars a month.
For that matter, most restrooms are
likely using nat gas to heat the water because that's far cheaper to begin
with. And with the rise of solar, daytime capacity is increasing,
which should diminish any difference in cost between day and night
generation costs. Also, at night we'd be burning fossil fuels, which
is dooming the planet you know. Factor all that in, the cost of batteries,
of rewiring, screwing around, having to find a place to put storage
batteries and it's a non-starter.

If it's such a great idea, why don't you start a company to do it,
show the great cost savings and make a lot of money?

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:38:36 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:47:19 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 9:34:46 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@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.

Where did the overwhelming number of ships, aircraft, trucks, bombs,
fuel, food, etc come from?

Ships apart, most of them came from Russian factories behind the Urals.

That's another stupid commie lib lie.

We even supplied those Russkie commie bastards,
and of course they welched and never paid us back.

They liked the trucks they got, but American tanks struck them as rubbish.

Typical. The commies get stuff for free and yet you complain.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:36:44 AM UTC-7, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:279d510b-538e-47a8-b197-1445a1feb307@googlegroups.com:


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

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

How many got federal money?

Enough Cost for solar (and wind) generation was driven down to where
coal-fired major power facilities are uncompetitive, which was an entirely
worthwhile goal. Not every risky startup (or technical strategy) makes
it through the sieve, but we can all breathe cleaner air today.

Company failures endanger wealth, not life.

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:04:50 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:


> I thought one of the reasons why we should not fear nuclear energy is because we have learned from our mistakes and the additional scrutiny both environmental and safety related are a direct result of "lessons learned", no? So we should toss that out the window?

Exactly WHAT lessons are you talking about?

Chernobyl:
put a containment vessel around the reactor
don't let the hired help commit criminal offenses
avoid overmoderated cores, a void makes those RACE

Three Mile Island:
operators need backup knowledge systems and
comprehensive monitoring in the hot places or you damage an expensive machine.
containment vessels contain damaged reactors adequately

Fukushima:
magnitude-9 earthquakes can take out coastal cities by wave action
cleanup of flood-damage is complicated by radioactive items
months of cleanup with cute robots equipped with video is
always good for a few minutes on prime-time news shows, generates lots of buzz

None of those lessons indicates any nuclear energy danger on the scale of, for instance,
automobile driving. Almost all of those lessons are completely covered by simple
solutions (the magnitude-9 earthquakes and criminal irresponsibility aren't
nuclear-specific, nor currently soluble; neither is asteroid impact).

There's a popular tendency to emotional outpouring with overtones of fear, uncertainty,
and doubt, and a bit of news-report bias. Those are NOT safety awareness.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 2:29:59 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:04:50 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:


I thought one of the reasons why we should not fear nuclear energy is because we have learned from our mistakes and the additional scrutiny both environmental and safety related are a direct result of "lessons learned", no? So we should toss that out the window?

Exactly WHAT lessons are you talking about?

Chernobyl:
put a containment vessel around the reactor
don't let the hired help commit criminal offenses
avoid overmoderated cores, a void makes those RACE

Three Mile Island:
operators need backup knowledge systems and
comprehensive monitoring in the hot places or you damage an expensive machine.
containment vessels contain damaged reactors adequately

Fukushima:
magnitude-9 earthquakes can take out coastal cities by wave action
cleanup of flood-damage is complicated by radioactive items
months of cleanup with cute robots equipped with video is
always good for a few minutes on prime-time news shows, generates lots of buzz

None of those lessons indicates any nuclear energy danger on the scale of, for instance,
automobile driving. Almost all of those lessons are completely covered by simple
solutions (the magnitude-9 earthquakes and criminal irresponsibility aren't
nuclear-specific, nor currently soluble; neither is asteroid impact).

There's a popular tendency to emotional outpouring with overtones of fear, uncertainty,
and doubt, and a bit of news-report bias. Those are NOT safety awareness.

So you don't believe any of the issues that resulted in these disasters are worthy of attention and we should be building reactors like the ones built in the 60s?

I have done some simple math and I am amazed that we were even willing to build some of the reactors we have now.

Potential of damage to the core releasing radiation is a threshold used to measure risk. Just the risk from such damage due to earthquakes sounds insignificant when applied to a single reactor for a single year. I've seen numbers from 1 in 74,176 for a "typical' reactor (according to the US NRC) to 1 in 10,000 for the Indian Point No 3 reactor. Consider that we have 100 reactors in the US and they typically will operate for around 70 years or longer that makes the odds 1 in 10 that one of the facilities will have damage from an earthquake that exposes the public to radiation.

If all the facilities were as bad as Indian Point, the number would be something close to 50:50.

The starting number for the Indian Point reactor was 1 in 17,000, still an amazing number to be willing to live with.

The North Anna reactors are built near a fault that was not mentioned in the application, a lie the power company was caught at and fined... later. Oh, the fine was just $32,000. Nearly 40 years later an earthquake cause twice the vibration the plant was designed to. They have since made adjustments to the plant.

BTW, earthquakes aren't even the most likely cause of such radiation releases. I think they are third!

I don't know if the nuclear industry has learned more about safety but I have. I've learned not to trust them as they will always put profit ahead of many other issues. So I know that if they want to build nuclear power plants they have to be watched very, very closely, something the NRC doesn't always do well enough.

The idea that the nuclear industry is over regulated is laughable. This is what it takes to keep nuclear energy adequately safe... we hope. No undue FUD. There is often FUD that is entirely appropriate.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 12:31:01 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 2:29:59 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:04:50 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

I thought one of the reasons why we should not fear nuclear energy is because we have learned from our mistakes and the additional scrutiny both environmental and safety related are a direct result of "lessons learned", no? So we should toss that out the window?

Exactly WHAT lessons are you talking about?

Chernobyl:
put a containment vessel around the reactor
don't let the hired help commit criminal offenses
avoid overmoderated cores, a void makes those RACE

> So you don't believe any of the issues that resulted in these disasters are worthy of attention and we should be building reactors like the ones built in the 60s?

That's completely illogical. Chernobyl has two major design elements that ought NOT
be repeated, clearly. And far from telling me WHAT lesson, you sweep a hand and
talk of 'disasters'. And we are talking about major projects, when
are such issues EVER other than worthy of attention?

'like the ones built in the 60s' doesn't seem on-topic at all. Is that about
alternatives to graphite-core water-cooled units?


> Potential of damage to the core releasing radiation is a threshold used to measure risk.

Predict, perhaps. But measure? It doesn't have the right UNITS for human-health risk.

Just the risk from such damage due to earthquakes...
The starting number for the Indian Point reactor was 1 in 17,000, still an amazing number to be willing to live with.

It beats all hollow the expected safe years of operation for the old Union Carbide
plant near Bhopal.

So, why does this answer my question about 'lessons learned'? This is NOT something
that was learned in any disaster (and learning is not random, cannot be covered by
statistical reasoning of this sort anyhow).

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 4:18:19 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 12:31:01 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 2:29:59 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:04:50 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

I thought one of the reasons why we should not fear nuclear energy is because we have learned from our mistakes and the additional scrutiny both environmental and safety related are a direct result of "lessons learned", no? So we should toss that out the window?

Exactly WHAT lessons are you talking about?

Chernobyl:
put a containment vessel around the reactor
don't let the hired help commit criminal offenses
avoid overmoderated cores, a void makes those RACE


So you don't believe any of the issues that resulted in these disasters are worthy of attention and we should be building reactors like the ones built in the 60s?

That's completely illogical. Chernobyl has two major design elements that ought NOT
be repeated, clearly. And far from telling me WHAT lesson, you sweep a hand and
talk of 'disasters'. And we are talking about major projects, when
are such issues EVER other than worthy of attention?

'like the ones built in the 60s' doesn't seem on-topic at all. Is that about
alternatives to graphite-core water-cooled units?


Potential of damage to the core releasing radiation is a threshold used to measure risk.

Predict, perhaps. But measure? It doesn't have the right UNITS for human-health risk.

Just the risk from such damage due to earthquakes...
The starting number for the Indian Point reactor was 1 in 17,000, still an amazing number to be willing to live with.

It beats all hollow the expected safe years of operation for the old Union Carbide
plant near Bhopal.

So, why does this answer my question about 'lessons learned'? This is NOT something
that was learned in any disaster (and learning is not random, cannot be covered by
statistical reasoning of this sort anyhow).

Me, I can't get over the fact that mostly the same bunch telling us nuclear
is too expensive, too dangerous, are telling us that the world is going to
suffer an irreversible disaster soon from CO2. Nuclear is one thing that
could be used that has zero emissions. And as for cost, carbon taxes and
the like, they have no problems with that, eh? Which of course just
discredits them.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 6:21:35 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 4:18:19 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 12:31:01 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 2:29:59 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:04:50 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

I thought one of the reasons why we should not fear nuclear energy is because we have learned from our mistakes and the additional scrutiny both environmental and safety related are a direct result of "lessons learned", no? So we should toss that out the window?

Exactly WHAT lessons are you talking about?

Chernobyl:
put a containment vessel around the reactor
don't let the hired help commit criminal offenses
avoid overmoderated cores, a void makes those RACE


So you don't believe any of the issues that resulted in these disasters are worthy of attention and we should be building reactors like the ones built in the 60s?

That's completely illogical. Chernobyl has two major design elements that ought NOT
be repeated, clearly. And far from telling me WHAT lesson, you sweep a hand and
talk of 'disasters'. And we are talking about major projects, when
are such issues EVER other than worthy of attention?

'like the ones built in the 60s' doesn't seem on-topic at all. Is that about
alternatives to graphite-core water-cooled units?


Potential of damage to the core releasing radiation is a threshold used to measure risk.

Predict, perhaps. But measure? It doesn't have the right UNITS for human-health risk.

Just the risk from such damage due to earthquakes...
The starting number for the Indian Point reactor was 1 in 17,000, still an amazing number to be willing to live with.

It beats all hollow the expected safe years of operation for the old Union Carbide
plant near Bhopal.

So, why does this answer my question about 'lessons learned'? This is NOT something
that was learned in any disaster (and learning is not random, cannot be covered by
statistical reasoning of this sort anyhow).

Me, I can't get over the fact that mostly the same bunch telling us nuclear
is too expensive, too dangerous, are telling us that the world is going to
suffer an irreversible disaster soon from CO2. Nuclear is one thing that
could be used that has zero emissions. And as for cost, carbon taxes and
the like, they have no problems with that, eh? Which of course just
discredits them.

Hey, I'm not saying we shouldn't try to solve our problems. It's not like nuclear is the only possible way to go. I'm just reporting the facts. Nuclear may not have the same problems as carbon based energy, but it has plenty of problems and right now doesn't appear to be viable.

I mention the costs of nuclear mostly in response to the claims that renewables aren't and in implication, never will be affordable. The handwriting is on the wall. It won't be too much longer before renewables combined with various storage technologies will be the dominant form of energy on the planet, not only because it is carbon free, but because it is cheap. I'm pretty sure that will be a long time before the end of natural life any nuclear plant built today. Keep in mind they last 60 to 80 years or maybe more. That's a long time to be locked into a payment plan.

Here's some further data I found. In 2017 US nukes cost about $25 per MWH (operation, maintenance and fuel) which is cheaper than fossil fueled energy mostly due to fuel costs. The prorated cost of a $10 billion, 1,000 MW reactor over 60 years is $20/MWh. Not counting the various ways this number is multiplied (cost of money, opportunity cost, etc). So consider that a nuke plant built today even if it comes in on budget, schedule, etc. will double the cost of nuclear generated electricity.

Compare to the lowering costs of the renewable technologies and I can't think of a reason why we shouldn't promote them and try to make them more available with storage.

Is there a reason to not try to make renewables more cost effective and functional?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[bitrex]

On 9/19/19 7:52 PM, jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

What 'safety systems' of today
match those of fifty years ago?

None. They had common sense. Don't drive into things, keep your hands away from that saw blade when it is turning, keep one hand in your pocket when messing with electricity, bob your hair if it is long when working with heavy machinery like lathes etc.

I would never let anyone use my machines unless they are at least 50 years old. That includes guns. I have refused the kid because I did not believe he was mature enough for a gun. Told him that he was likely to get into more trouble with it and solve nothing, and of course possibly wreck his life.

But the Germans were experts with machines, really. Better than us actually. More productive with better precision, and this has been true for quite some time. There is a REASON they came so close to taking over half of Europe.

He was a boon to Germany, and responsible for Wolksvagon. I wonder how much he and Ford picked each other's brains, they were pen pals and had quite a bit of mutual respect. They were doing about the same thing - making cars people could afford.

But he got out of hand. He got too much against the Jews, in fact it took him a while to get the people up to it even though they had been the ones fucked. I would have regulated them. That is what Putin does. Seems to be working, Russia is in great shape now. The media might say otherwise but look it up for yourself and see the numbers. And when they lie, they usually lie against him, not for him.

Like Pussy Riot, what hapened to them ? Some locality where they caused trouble at the entrance to an Olympic event and then Putin said he thought the sentence was a bit too harsh. They didn't disappear. All this about his enemies disappearing, well if Pussy Riot ain't one then there are none. They are still there.

I hear from people over that side of the pond that even though their government is liberal, a hell of alot of them are not. And look at Brexit, the supposedly liberal, progressiv Brits voted that they are sick of the interference, and the immigration policies of the EU and want their sovereignty back. Some will not understand that but I do. they want to rule themselves and not have some foreigners telling them what to do about immigration or anything else. AND IT PASSED. What does that tell you ?

I know what Slowman would say here and really wish he would choke on a peanut, or a big dick. Globalist socialists are my enemy. I want my guns. I want my three acre yard where I have enough room to have a party even though many of my friends hate each other. Well not really hate but... And I want to earn the money for all this, not have it given to me. I want the freedom to use the Nword without going to jail, if I get busted I want my day in court. I will never again take a plea bargain unless they get me drunk driving, then that is really your best option. But anything else I will stand for myself in court. If they come and decide to search the house for whatever I want the right to say - got a warrant ? They want permission, no. Wake the judge up, umm, (taking out my wallet) Spanagel's number is, fluff trough all the shit in my wallet and say " was right here, must be in the house, want me to get it for you ? (Spanagel is a judge in this town)

So as nice as Germany is, I doubt I would like to spend much time there. Like retire or anything. There are much better countries suited to me. At one time I might have considered it but they have too conservative of a government.

I'd say we all sort of existentially fear a future where the "political
situation" is 10 billion people living in poverty and destitution on a
planet of slums while 0.00001% of humanity lives as Gods in cloud cities
bloated from a continual diet of human flesh harvested by drone from the
poor wretches below.

There's differences of opinion on whether it's the socialists,
feminists, and greens or Wal-Mart, Monsanto and the military-industrial
complex/"deep state" that's going to push things in that direction.

 

[bitrex]

On 9/26/19 8:21 PM, bitrex wrote:

I know what Slowman would say here and really wish he would choke on a
peanut, or a big dick. Globalist socialists are my enemy. I want my
guns. I want my three acre yard where I have enough room to have a
party even though many of my friends hate each other. Well not really
hate but... And I want to earn the money for all this, not have it
given to me. I want the freedom to use the Nword without going to
jail, if I get busted I want my day in court. I will never again take
a plea bargain unless they get me drunk driving, then that is really
your best option. But anything else I will stand for myself in court.
If they come and decide to search the house for whatever I want the
right to say - got a warrant ?  They want permission, no. Wake the
judge up, umm, (taking out my wallet) Spanagel's number is, fluff
trough all the shit in my wallet and say " was right here, must be in
the house, want me to get it for you ? (Spanagel is a judge in this town)

So as nice as Germany is, I doubt I would like to spend much time
there. Like retire or anything. There are much better countries suited
to me. At one time I might have considered it but they have too
conservative of a government.


I'd say we all sort of existentially fear a future where the "political
situation" is 10 billion people living in poverty and destitution on a
planet of slums while 0.00001% of humanity lives as Gods in cloud cities
bloated from a continual diet of human flesh harvested by drone from the
poor wretches below.

There's differences of opinion on whether it's the socialists,
feminists, and greens or Wal-Mart, Monsanto and the military-industrial
complex/"deep state" that's going to push things in that direction.

I have my own opinions on that dichotomy but whoever it ends up will
have to catch me first. come n get it bitches!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 8:21:35 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 4:18:19 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 12:31:01 PM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 2:29:59 PM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 7:04:50 AM UTC-7, Rick C wrote:

I thought one of the reasons why we should not fear nuclear energy is because we have learned from our mistakes and the additional scrutiny both environmental and safety related are a direct result of "lessons learned", no? So we should toss that out the window?

Exactly WHAT lessons are you talking about?

Chernobyl:
put a containment vessel around the reactor
don't let the hired help commit criminal offenses
avoid overmoderated cores, a void makes those RACE

So you don't believe any of the issues that resulted in these disasters are worthy of attention and we should be building reactors like the ones built in the 60s?

That's completely illogical. Chernobyl has two major design elements that ought NOT be repeated, clearly. And far from telling me WHAT lesson, you sweep a hand and talk of 'disasters'. And we are talking about major projects, when are such issues EVER other than worthy of attention?

'like the ones built in the 60s' doesn't seem on-topic at all. Is that about alternatives to graphite-core water-cooled units?

Potential of damage to the core releasing radiation is a threshold used to measure risk.

Predict, perhaps. But measure? It doesn't have the right UNITS for human-health risk.

Just the risk from such damage due to earthquakes...
The starting number for the Indian Point reactor was 1 in 17,000, still an amazing number to be willing to live with.

It beats all hollow the expected safe years of operation for the old Union Carbide plant near Bhopal.

So, why does this answer my question about 'lessons learned'? This is NOT something that was learned in any disaster (and learning is not random, cannot be covered by statistical reasoning of this sort anyhow).

Me, I can't get over the fact that mostly the same bunch telling us nuclear
is too expensive, too dangerous, are telling us that the world is going to
suffer an irreversible disaster soon from CO2.

The group that is demonstrably more intelligent than Trader4?

> Nuclear is one thing that could be used that has zero emissions.

If you don't count nuclear waste as an "emission". The fact that you have to keep it secure for 100,000-odd years means that it is an "emission" even if you don't dump it in the nearest river.

> And as for cost, carbon taxes and the like, they have no problems with that, eh? Which of course just discredits them.

Trader4 hasn't noticed that solar and wind generation are now as cheap as burning fossil carbon, and is too dumb to realise that the process that has cut the cost of solar power by a factor of four over the past 20 years is going to cut it by another factor of four as it takes over as the major source of electric power.

He would have discredited himself in the process, if he had had any credibility to start with.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

<TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:a16b995f-2d69-4e96-a47c-
64e480173a99@googlegroups.com:

. Most restrooms probably don't have a
total hot water bill of hundreds of dollars a month.

The campus I was on when I conceived of it had 6 3 story football
field sized buildings that had around four, six sink restrooms per
gender in each of them.

Their HWOD usage added up to a substantial portion of their bill.

I guess you have no clue that off-peak hours are charged at a
signifcantly lower rate. Spending those hours trickle charging your
battery pack back up to peak would be far cheaper than the daytime
on-demand usage when the business rate is so high. Hell, even the
coffee service wattage could be put on the battery set and recover at
night.

Maybe you have never seen a huge engineering, design, and
manufacturing campus before.

Are you one of those "mom's basement" lard ass fucktards that never
came out into the real world? Your TraitorTard4 nym sure makes you
sound that way, as does your google searched attempts at responses.
Are you a 450# guess as you go fat ass, fat ass?