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

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 8:48:09 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@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,

No it does not! ALL customers PAY, even though your blind as a bat
eyes fail to see the money.

Grow up, you stupid fuck. Better yet, HOAD!

Repeat after me, zero Kwh times anything is ZERO. If you're net usage
is zero, then you have no kwh charge and you're not paying for the
distributions network even though you need it and use it when the sun
isn't shining. Your neighbor without solar with the $150 bill is paying
about half of that for the grid that you're using. The concept is so
basic, it's quite amazing that some fools here can't grasp it.

Follow it to it's logical conclusion. If everyone but one home had solar
and zero bills, that last home would be paying millions, the full cost
of the grid. Yet all those solar homes need the grid and are using it.

Wrong, always wrong. It's really quite amazing, you should start picking
stocks, tell us what to buy, then we could short them and make a lot
of money.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:6578f295-94b4-4fab-
8b85-b6399e831c63@googlegroups.com:

> Repeat after me, zero Kwh times anything is ZERO.

Except that it is NOT zero kW/hr. It is exactly what it is times the
rate MINUS the CREDITS EARNED.

Grow up, little boy. You have no chance of getting anyone who knows
what you are about to do anything (much less repeat after you), and it
is not because your name is not Simon. It is because you are dirt
dumb.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, September 23, 2019 at 11:06:11 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, September 22, 2019 at 8:48:09 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@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,

No it does not! ALL customers PAY, even though your blind as a bat
eyes fail to see the money.

Grow up, you stupid fuck. Better yet, HOAD!

Repeat after me, zero Kwh times anything is ZERO. If you're net usage
is zero, then you have no kwh charge and you're not paying for the
distributions network even though you need it and use it when the sun
isn't shining. Your neighbor without solar with the $150 bill is paying
about half of that for the grid that you're using. The concept is so
basic, it's quite amazing that some fools here can't grasp it.

Follow it to it's logical conclusion. If everyone but one home had solar
and zero bills, that last home would be paying millions, the full cost
of the grid. Yet all those solar homes need the grid and are using it.

Trader4 thinks that this is a "logical conclusion".

It is actually an absurd extrapolation. Generating and selling electric power is a business, and if the business changes, so will the way in which the billing is organised.

Clifford Heath just posted a description of how his particular power bills are worked out - he generates his own power when the sun is shining, and sells some of it back to the grid - at the rate that power auction system has worked out for the particular period. At night he buys in power, at the different rate that the power auction system has set for that particular period.

He also pays a fixed connection charge, which presumably pays his share of the the interest charges and the maintenance on the grid as a whole.

I've never even heard of his supplier, but I don't have any solar cells - our flat doesn't have a place to put them.

<snipped the usual twaddle about people other than Trader4 being wrong>

--
Bill sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:18:17 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:6578f295-94b4-4fab-
8b85-b6399e831c63@googlegroups.com:

Repeat after me, zero Kwh times anything is ZERO.

Except that it is NOT zero kW/hr. It is exactly what it is times the
rate MINUS the CREDITS EARNED.

When CREDITS EARNED = GRID ELECTRICITY USED? I know it's a
complicated formula, AlwaysWrong.

Grow up, little boy. You have no chance of getting anyone who knows
what you are about to do anything (much less repeat after you), and it
is not because your name is not Simon. It is because you are dirt
dumb.

You're _always_ wrong. Really, AlwaysWrong, how do you do it?

 

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,

No it does not! ALL customers PAY, even though your blind as a
bat
eyes fail to see the money.

AlwaysWrong is *always* wrong.

Grow up, you stupid fuck. Better yet, HOAD!

Always.


Looky! KRW has returned to mumble some more petty senile old
nearly dead wretched hearted fucktard baby bullshit.

See. You *ARE* _always_ wrong, AlwaysWrong.

Your frequency is decreasing. That must mean that the chest is
declining. Don't worry... it's coming.

Other things to do, AlwaysWrong. As always, you're wrong about
everything. I've never had a chest pain in my life. Well, not from
my heart.

You also a lifelong tobacco smoker, fuckhead?

_ALWAYS_ wrong. No here one is surprised, AlwaysWrong. The name fits
you so well. Larkin nailed that one.

 

[Bill Sloman]

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,

No it does not! ALL customers PAY, even though your blind as a
bat
eyes fail to see the money.

AlwaysWrong is *always* wrong.

Grow up, you stupid fuck. Better yet, HOAD!

Always.


Looky! KRW has returned to mumble some more petty senile old
nearly dead wretched hearted fucktard baby bullshit.

See. You *ARE* _always_ wrong, AlwaysWrong.

That's a matter of opinion. Krw's isn't worth much.

Your frequency is decreasing. That must mean that the chest is
declining. Don't worry... it's coming.

Other things to do, AlwaysWrong. As always, you're wrong about
everything. I've never had a chest pain in my life. Well, not from
my heart.

The elderly always blame them on indigestion.

You also a lifelong tobacco smoker, fuckhead?

_ALWAYS_ wrong. No here one is surprised, AlwaysWrong. The name fits
you so well. Larkin nailed that one.

Not even krw and Trader4 are always wrong, though they do come closer than most.

The proposition that John Larkin ever "nailed" anything is amusing, unless you count playing the gullible sucker to perfection. Sadly, that isn't a part he's learned but rather an example he serves as.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

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,

No it does not! ALL customers PAY, even though your blind as a
bat
eyes fail to see the money.

AlwaysWrong is *always* wrong.

Grow up, you stupid fuck. Better yet, HOAD!

Always.


Looky! KRW has returned to mumble some more petty senile old
nearly dead wretched hearted fucktard baby bullshit.

See. You *ARE* _always_ wrong, AlwaysWrong.

That's a matter of opinion. Krw's isn't worth much.

Your frequency is decreasing. That must mean that the chest is
declining. Don't worry... it's coming.

Other things to do, AlwaysWrong. As always, you're wrong about
everything. I've never had a chest pain in my life. Well, not from
my heart.

The elderly always blame them on indigestion.

You also a lifelong tobacco smoker, fuckhead?

_ALWAYS_ wrong. No here one is surprised, AlwaysWrong. The name fits
you so well. Larkin nailed that one.

Not even krw and Trader4 are always wrong, though they do come closer than most.

The proposition that John Larkin ever "nailed" anything is amusing, unless you count playing the gullible sucker to perfection. Sadly, that isn't a part he's learned but rather an example he serves as.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Another thing with libs like you is that you chose to deny the most
basic of facts, like in this case, that with net metering, most
solar homeowners are not paying for their use of the grid. Instead
you just deny and lie. Quite amazing. It's like Senator Moynhihan
once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
And then you quickly devolve into ad hominem attacks, because that;s
all you have when you lie and deny facts. Your buddy DL, he's reduced
to denying that zero times anything is ZERO. Really pathetic.

 

[Bill Sloman]

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,

No it does not! ALL customers PAY, even though your blind as a
bat
eyes fail to see the money.

AlwaysWrong is *always* wrong.

Grow up, you stupid fuck. Better yet, HOAD!

Always.


Looky! KRW has returned to mumble some more petty senile old
nearly dead wretched hearted fucktard baby bullshit.

See. You *ARE* _always_ wrong, AlwaysWrong.

That's a matter of opinion. Krw's isn't worth much.

Your frequency is decreasing. That must mean that the chest is
declining. Don't worry... it's coming.

Other things to do, AlwaysWrong. As always, you're wrong about
everything. I've never had a chest pain in my life. Well, not from
my heart.

The elderly always blame them on indigestion.

You also a lifelong tobacco smoker, fuckhead?

_ALWAYS_ wrong. No here one is surprised, AlwaysWrong. The name fits
you so well. Larkin nailed that one.

Not even krw and Trader4 are always wrong, though they do come closer than most.

The proposition that John Larkin ever "nailed" anything is amusing, unless you count playing the gullible sucker to perfection. Sadly, that isn't a part he's learned but rather an example he serves as.

Another thing with libs like you is that you chose to deny the most
basic of facts, like in this case, that with net metering, most
solar homeowners are not paying for their use of the grid.

We aren't interested in your demented ideas about what home owners with solar cells on the roof are paying. You haven't provided a link to any evidence about what is actually going on anywhere.

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

> Instead you just deny and lie.

We deny that you know what you are talking about.

> Quite amazing.

It may amaze you that we don't share your delusions about your mental competence.

> It's like Senator Moynhihan once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

All you post is about what you think is going on, no links to independently verifiable facts.

And then you quickly devolve into ad hominem attacks, because that;s
all you have when you lie and deny facts.

As if you qualified as a hominem.

Your buddy DL, he's reduced to denying that zero times anything is ZERO.
Really pathetic.

If you had a working brain, you'd be able to realise that what he was denying was that this observation had anything to do with the subject we are discussing.

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

<TraitorTard4@optonline.net> wrote in news:b208c680-4f94-44c8-94d0-
0ba54a8892f1@googlegroups.com:

> libs like you

You really are worse than Donald J. Trump is.

Lye pit deserving fucks like you...

 

[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:

<snip>

Not even krw and Trader4 are always wrong, though they do come closer than most.

The proposition that John Larkin ever "nailed" anything is amusing, unless you count playing the gullible sucker to perfection. Sadly, that isn't a part he's learned but rather an example he serves as.

Another thing with libs like you is that you chose to deny the most
basic of facts, like in this case, that with net metering, most
solar homeowners are not paying for their use of the grid.

We aren't interested in your demented ideas about what home owners with solar cells on the roof are paying. You haven't provided a link to any evidence about what is actually going on anywhere.

Google broken down under again?

Why waste time on trying validate your silly ideas?

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.

You are talking about the tiny bit of the USA that you think you know about..

That is stupid, but the rest of us are not going to pay any attention to giving you the lame-brained discussion you seem to want.

Instead you just deny and lie.

We deny that you know what you are talking about.

Quite amazing.

It may amaze you that we don't share your delusions about your mental competence.

It's like Senator Moynhihan once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

All you post is about what you think is going on, no links to independently verifiable facts.

And then you quickly devolve into ad hominem attacks, because that;s
all you have when you lie and deny facts.

As if you qualified as a hominem.

Your buddy DL, he's reduced to denying that zero times anything is ZERO.
Really pathetic.

If you had a working brain, you'd be able to realise that what he was denying was that this observation had anything to do with the subject we are discussing.

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.

What makes you think that? Some of the early subsidized billing arrangements allowed you to sell what you generated back to the grid at the same fixed price you paid when consuming power from the grid. That's obviously not a sustainable arrangement, and I'd be surprised if you could get that anywhere now.

> Half of the poor families electric bill is for the grid.

Mine too. So what?

<snip>

> Long live the truth!

Maybe, someday, Trader4 will work that what he believes isn't always true.

Krw hasn't got there yet, after a decade or so of acting as if he is infallible, and Trader4 is even dumber.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

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,

No it does not! ALL customers PAY, even though your blind as a
bat
eyes fail to see the money.

AlwaysWrong is *always* wrong.

Grow up, you stupid fuck. Better yet, HOAD!

Always.


Looky! KRW has returned to mumble some more petty senile old
nearly dead wretched hearted fucktard baby bullshit.

See. You *ARE* _always_ wrong, AlwaysWrong.

That's a matter of opinion. Krw's isn't worth much.

Your frequency is decreasing. That must mean that the chest is
declining. Don't worry... it's coming.

Other things to do, AlwaysWrong. As always, you're wrong about
everything. I've never had a chest pain in my life. Well, not from
my heart.

The elderly always blame them on indigestion.

You also a lifelong tobacco smoker, fuckhead?

_ALWAYS_ wrong. No here one is surprised, AlwaysWrong. The name fits
you so well. Larkin nailed that one.

Not even krw and Trader4 are always wrong, though they do come closer than most.

The proposition that John Larkin ever "nailed" anything is amusing, unless you count playing the gullible sucker to perfection. Sadly, that isn't a part he's learned but rather an example he serves as.

Another thing with libs like you is that you chose to deny the most
basic of facts, like in this case, that with net metering, most
solar homeowners are not paying for their use of the grid.

We aren't interested in your demented ideas about what home owners with solar cells on the roof are paying. You haven't provided a link to any evidence about what is actually going on anywhere.

Google broken down under again?

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.

Instead you just deny and lie.

We deny that you know what you are talking about.

Quite amazing.

It may amaze you that we don't share your delusions about your mental competence.

It's like Senator Moynhihan once said, you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

All you post is about what you think is going on, no links to independently verifiable facts.

And then you quickly devolve into ad hominem attacks, because that;s
all you have when you lie and deny facts.

As if you qualified as a hominem.

Your buddy DL, he's reduced to denying that zero times anything is ZERO.
Really pathetic.

If you had a working brain, you'd be able to realise that what he was denying was that this observation had anything to do with the subject we are discussing.

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!

 

[John Doe]

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).

 

[John Doe]

The grand total of all nuclear waste ever produced would fill a
United States football field to less than 10 yards high. That's why
politicians are doing nothing about nuclear waste, they don't care
because it's not an issue. Someday we will toss nuclear waste to the
sun where it will be consumed without limit and with absolutely zero
effect. That is assuming the human race survives long enough. I tend
to doubt. I believe this cannibal leftist will, at least in
appearance, get what it wishes for...

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

X-Received: by 2002:a37:7cc6:: with SMTP id x189mr1872290qkc.359.1568776504099; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:15:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e403:: with SMTP id o3mr1594936qvl.102.1568776503826; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed8.news.xs4all.nl!85.12.16.68.MISMATCH!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!o24no6391931qtl.0!news-out.google.com!x7ni793qtf.0!nntp.google.com!o24no6391928qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 20:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qlqqi9$83j$1 dont-email.me
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
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <df33b432-8ff6-4df8-b361-02c2dd63014e 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: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 03:15:04 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2041
X-Received-Body-CRC: 739644457
Lines: 14
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:565264

On Wednesday, September 18, 2019 at 12:28:31 AM UTC+10, 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.

What's wrong is that the enthusiasts for nuclear power have always ignored the problems of dealing with nuclear waste - after fifty years we still haven't got an acceptable scheme for keeping it safe until it isn't dangerously radioactive.

Ostensibly adequate technical solutions may exist - the Australian CSIRO's Synroc scheme looks good - but it don't actually seem to be generally acceptable.

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

snipped John Doe being even more stupid than usual>.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Doe]

Psychobabble BS about the cost of nuclear power plant construction...

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

X-Received: by 2002:ac8:18c2:: with SMTP id o2mr455514qtk.276.1569445382546; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:aed:216a:: with SMTP id 97mr481810qtc.114.1569445382423; Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.dns-netz.com!news.freedyn.net!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.am4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!o24no9247896qtl.0!news-out.google.com!q23ni449qtl.1!nntp.google.com!o24no9247893qtl.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 14:03:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <qmgjo2$7gp$2 dont-email.me
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> <0f124212-50cf-45be-a46f-c0c1229efdfa googlegroups.com> <qmgjo2$7gp$2 dont-email.me
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <74125ebf-cd20-4f23-8b70-c716951d6270 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: Wed, 25 Sep 2019 21:03:02 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes: 2707
X-Received-Body-CRC: 2349408028
Xref: reader01.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:566040

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 live
s.

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.

Now that is dangerous... not to you and me, but to the utilities.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

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.

Now that is dangerous... not to you and me, but to the utilities.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Doe]

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".

One day a giant meteor will slam into Earth, sending us perilously
out of orbit. The antinuclear freaks will be screaming "The nuclear
power plants are failing!"

One of the many Australian trolls on USENET...

--
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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Doe]

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

--
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.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Whoey Louie]

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

 

[Rick C]

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!

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.

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.

--

Rick C.

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