Texas power prices briefly soar to $9,000/MWh as heat wave b

[Rick C]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

BS. If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather
calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out
on nuclear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after
all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons. They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle.

So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total energy production is at face value fallacious. We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity. I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very expensive.

So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve the carbon problem with it. I suppose we could connect massive amounts of energy storage and add even further to the already high cost of nuclear.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after
all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

> What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.

> It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

> That's why there are 50 nuclear plants under construction around the world, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use Google yet?

You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you demonstrably can't use google, you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too expensive to ever make money.

Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly. Solar cells halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economically attractive.

If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price will almost certainly halve again, and make them even more economically attractive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png

The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican Party when they funded the Tea Party movement,

Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or Tom Steyer using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party.

Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane make. The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got interested, and James Arthur posted here about being pestered by them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the American legal system in a good light).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after
all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.

That's why there are 50 nuclear plants under construction around the world, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use Google yet?

You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you demonstrably can't use google,

ROFL

Typical for a dishonest, lying lib. Project on to others what you yourself are actually doing. It's clear that you are the fool who either won't use Google or is just lying and trolling again.




you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too expensive to ever make money.

Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly. Solar cells halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economically attractive.

If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price will almost certainly halve again, and make them even more economically attractive..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png

The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican Party when they funded the Tea Party movement,

Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or Tom Steyer using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party.

Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane make.

That's either because you are lying again or drinking Kool-aid from stupid, totally biased sources.


The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got interested, and James Arthur posted here about being pestered by them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the American legal system in a good light).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

KOCH, KOCH, KOCH! But George Soros, Tom Steyer and other ultra libs do the same and no issues there, in fact you deny, deny, deny. Stupid lying lib.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:7beef7ea-32ad-4af2-a03d-9db06376ca63@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie
wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after
all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%.
Those are t
he facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that
renewables were
8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post
and picks
the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction
around the world.


That's why there are 50 nuclear plants under construction
around the wo
rld, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use
Google yet?

You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you
demonstra
bly can't use google,


ROFL

Typical for a dishonest, lying lib. Project on to others what you
yourself are actually doing. It's clear that you are the fool who
either won't use Google or is just lying and trolling again.




you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is
very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still
being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too
expensive to ever make money.

Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly.
Solar cells
halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more
economically attractive.

If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price
will al
most certainly halve again, and make them even more economically
attractive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Stat
es#/med
ia/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png

The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican
Party when
they funded the Tea Party movement,

Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or
Tom Stey
er using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party.

Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane
make.


That's either because you are lying again or drinking Kool-aid
from stupid, totally biased sources.


The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got
interested, and James Arthur posted here about being pestered by
them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough
on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the
American legal system in a good light).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

KOCH, KOCH, KOCH! But George Soros, Tom Steyer and other ultra
libs do the same and no issues there, in fact you deny, deny,
deny. Stupid lying lib.

You are both wrong. There are currently 53 reactors under
construction and there are 448 operating, in-use nuclear reactor
stations.

Some have multiple reactor vessels.

So there is probably over 500 running right now.

Of the 53 under construction, some are developmental/research
types.

Also there are hundreds more in use in ships satellites and other
location. The 448 number is for 'civil' reactors which pump our
grids. But there are many more.

I could post a link, but you claim to be the google god and
everyone else are 'dishonest lying libs'.

You are truly as stupid as it gets. Project that,
DumbFatFuckTard4.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.

What fifty nuclear plants?

That's why there are 50 nuclear plants under construction around the world, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use Google yet?

You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you demonstrably can't use google,

ROFL

As opposed to logging on and finding a link that listed those fifty stations. That would work better than rolling around on the floor, but while you may have mastered rolling around on the floor, anything more intellectually demanding is inaccessible.

> Typical for a dishonest, lying lib. Project on to others what you yourself are actually doing. It's clear that you are the fool who either won't use Google or is just lying and trolling again.

Trader4 hasn't noticed that I googled the link the made the point that his figure for nuclear component in US power generation was incomplete and misleading. He hasn't even bothered to snip it out of his response.

He doesn't even try to disguise his stupidity, probably because he doesn't realise quite how obvious it is.

you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too expensive to ever make money.

Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly. Solar cells halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economically attractive.

If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price will almost certainly halve again, and make them even more economically attractive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States#/media/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png

The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican Party when they funded the Tea Party movement,

Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or Tom Steyer using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party.

Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane make.

That's either because you are lying again or drinking Kool-aid from stupid, totally biased sources.

I leave the stupid, totally biassed, sources to you. You recycle them with gullible enthusiasm.

The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got interested, and James Arthur posted here about being pestered by them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the American legal system in a good light).

KOCH, KOCH, KOCH! But George Soros, Tom Steyer and other ultra libs do the same and no issues there, in fact you deny, deny, deny.

You may think they do, but you believe any numbers of things that don't happen to be true.

> Stupid lying lib.

A little wishful thinking there. Trader4 isn't up to any kind of more demanding thinking - if he doesn't share an opinion he wants it to be a lie.

Sadly, what he wants and what the real world will deliver aren't closely connected.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 7:22:38 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:7beef7ea-32ad-4af2-a03d-9db06376ca63@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie
wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman
wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after
all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%.
Those are t
he facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that
renewables were
8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post
and picks
the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction
around the world.


That's why there are 50 nuclear plants under construction
around the wo
rld, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use
Google yet?

You tell us that there are 50 under construction, but since you
demonstra
bly can't use google,


ROFL

Typical for a dishonest, lying lib. Project on to others what you
yourself are actually doing. It's clear that you are the fool who
either won't use Google or is just lying and trolling again.




you've not provided us with any link to your "evidence" which is
very likely to be fifty links to the two reactors that are still
being constructed in the US despite turning out to be much too
expensive to ever make money.

Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly.
Solar cells
halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more
economically attractive.

If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price
will al
most certainly halve again, and make them even more economically
attractive.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_Stat
es#/med
ia/File:US_Electrical_Generation_1950-2016.png

The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican
Party when
they funded the Tea Party movement,

Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or
Tom Stey
er using their money to "buy" the Democratic Party.

Because it's not a claim I've ever heard anybody remotely sane
make.


That's either because you are lying again or drinking Kool-aid
from stupid, totally biased sources.


The Koch brothers spent enough that the US tax office got
interested, and James Arthur posted here about being pestered by
them and forced to prove that the Koch brothers had spent enough
on lawyers to make the project legal (which doesn't show the
American legal system in a good light).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

KOCH, KOCH, KOCH! But George Soros, Tom Steyer and other ultra
libs do the same and no issues there, in fact you deny, deny,
deny. Stupid lying lib.



You are both wrong. There are currently 53 reactors under
construction and there are 448 operating, in-use nuclear reactor
stations.

ROFL. The issue was whether nuclear power is economically viable.
I said there were 50 plants under construction right now. Others,
like your butt buddy Bill, said that's not true, there are few or
none, nuclear isn't viable. So, the actual number is 53.
Well, EXCUSE ME!

ROFL

But thanks for pointing out the truth, that Bill is full of BS,
as usual.

Some have multiple reactor vessels.

So there is probably over 500 running right now.

Of the 53 under construction, some are developmental/research
types.

Also there are hundreds more in use in ships satellites and other
location. The 448 number is for 'civil' reactors which pump our
grids. But there are many more.

I could post a link, but you claim to be the google god and
everyone else are 'dishonest lying libs'.

You are truly as stupid as it gets. Project that,
DumbFatFuckTard4.

And then, despite the fact that I was right, you proceed to attack me.
How sad and typical.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.

What fifty nuclear plants?

Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them.
Stupid lib. Just like all the libs, they want someone else to do
the work for them, they are helpless. Well, DL just did the work
for you!

Next!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.

What fifty nuclear plants?


Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them.

He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else.

You are relying on sloppy second hand information that has gotten even less reliable once it's passed through your feeble excuse for comprehension.

I'm not going to take you seriously enough even to look.

Stupid lib. Just like all the libs, they want someone else to do
the work for them, they are helpless. Well, DL just did the work
for you!

He found reactors under construction, not power reactors under construction. It isn't the job you claim to have done, and clearly didn't.

Make all the fuss you like. You are a dim-wit, and advertise your defects every time I give you the opportunity to claim you know what you are talking about.

You are slow at waking up to what an ass you make of yourself, but even with somebody as dim as you, the penny eventually drops.

> Next!

Trader4 needs another pratfall.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

BS. If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather
calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out
on nuclear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after
all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons.

That's not true and MIT says so. In fact they say they are good for being
able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind. You know, like when
clouds show up?

http://news.mit.edu/2018/flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-more-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid-0425

Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service.






> They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle.

Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base load.
What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like when a cloud
shows up.

So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total energy production is at face value fallacious.

BS. MIT says so. And even if it were true, we could use nuclear for
a lot more than 20%. And shouldn't we? The climate change folks say
the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does that in a big
and real way. After two decades of talk and actually putting up a
lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power comes from solar.




We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity. I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very expensive.

So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve the carbon problem with it.

Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far more
serious limitations. And at 1.6% of power from solar after all the
harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher electric
bills, it sure hasn't done much.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:01:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.

What fifty nuclear plants?


Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them.

He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else.

ROFL! I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in
other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him
to say I'm wrong, because I said 50? ROFL. You're amazing. Fifty or
fifty three, who the hell cares, except a troll like you. My point is
100% correct.

And DL didn't say "quite a few' were research, he said some. So,
let's recap your lying lib methods I said there were
50 nuclear power reactors currently under construction and 50 more in the
planning stages. DL claims that I'm wrong, it's actually 53, as if that
nit matters. Now, IDK what he added beyond the fifty POWER reactors,
neither do you and I don't care. But now you take his increased
number which may include three research reactors on top of the 50
POWER reactors, and try to use that to claim that I'm wrong/
Your lying, shystering lib methods never stop.

One more time. There are 50 nuclear power plants under construction
worldwide, with 50 more in the planning stages showing that contrary
to your stupid claims, they are being built. All your BS can't
change that.

You are relying on sloppy second hand information that has gotten even less reliable once it's passed through your feeble excuse for comprehension.

ROFL. You're the dope that can't use Google and asks others to do
it for you. And then talk about information sources, you just used
data in a post from DL as a source! And even that wasn't good enough,
you had to lie about what he posted on top of that.

I'm not going to take you seriously enough even to look.

Which explains how stupid libs like you stay so ignorant. You've
made about 5 posts on this now, but you won't spend one minute
to find out the truth. Thanks for representing for the libs!

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 5:59:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:01:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.

What fifty nuclear plants?


Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them.

He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else.

ROFL! I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in
other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him
to say I'm wrong, because I said 50? ROFL. You're amazing. Fifty or
fifty three, who the hell cares, except a troll like you. My point is
100% correct.

Your point is 100% wishful thinking. If you had a little more sense you might be aware of the fact.

Fifty reactors was always a suspiciously round number. Fifty more being planned even more so.

And DL didn't say "quite a few' were research, he said some. So,
let's recap your lying lib methods I said there were
50 nuclear power reactors currently under construction and 50 more in the
planning stages. DL claims that I'm wrong, it's actually 53, as if that
nit matters. Now, IDK what he added beyond the fifty POWER reactors,
neither do you and I don't care. But now you take his increased
number which may include three research reactors on top of the 50
POWER reactors, and try to use that to claim that I'm wrong.

You want to imagine that his 53 planned reactors include exactly three research reactors? No surprise there. You probably are wrong - and your habit of jumping to convenient conclusions has been exposed one more time.

<snipped the usual drivel>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 5:59:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:01:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.

What fifty nuclear plants?


Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them.

He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else.


ROFL! I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in
other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him
to say I'm wrong, because I said 50?

You said fifty power reactors, DL said 53 reactors in total, including an unspecified number of research reactors, and I pointed out that reactors used to produce medical isotopes might show up in such a list too.

What that reveals is that you don't appreciate that there is more than one kind of nuclear reactor, which devalues your under-informed opinion even further.

You'd have looked less like an idiot if you had taken that point on board.

ROFL. You're amazing. Fifty or
fifty three, who the hell cares, except a troll like you. My point is
100% correct.

In fact you've made it clear that you have read some half-baked claim somewhere, and have been recycling it as an indisputable fact ever since.

You are 100% twit.

And DL didn't say "quite a few' were research, he said some. So,
let's recap your lying lib methods I said there were
50 nuclear power reactors currently under construction and 50 more in the
planning stages. DL claims that I'm wrong, it's actually 53, as if that
nit matters.

"Some" and "a few" aren't specific enough to be worth differentiating.

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a distinction that you seem to recognise.

Now, IDK what he added beyond the fifty POWER reactors,
neither do you and I don't care.

But you should.

> But now you take his increased number which may include three research reactors on top of the 50 POWER reactors, and try to use that to claim that I'm wrong.

Why three? "Some" could definitely be more than three. "A few" might not be..

Your "fifty" power reactors is a suspiciously round number and the additional fifty planned reactors is even more obviously rounded off.

> Your lying, shystering lib methods never stop.

Your brainless promotion of other people's rhetoric is earning you the contempt you deserve. Complaining about being jeered at may make you happier, but no less contemptible.

One more time. There are 50 nuclear power plants under construction
worldwide, with 50 more in the planning stages showing that contrary
to your stupid claims, they are being built. All your BS can't
change that.

Trader4 demonstrates his faith in argument by persistent reiteration. Asserting what you claim to be facts when you won't - and probably can't - provide links to some source with any credibility at all isn't going to get anybody to take you seriously. At this point any link that you did provide would become suspect just because you'd espoused it.

You are relying on sloppy second hand information that has gotten even less reliable once it's passed through your feeble excuse for comprehension..

ROFL. You're the dope that can't use Google and asks others to do
it for you.

Since I clearly can use Google, and have done in this thread, this is obvious nonsense. What I want is for you to reveal the source of your misapprehensions.

I know I can do Google searches that work. I'm getting progressively more confident that you can't.

And then talk about information sources, you just used
data in a post from DL as a source! And even that wasn't good enough,
you had to lie about what he posted on top of that.

Really? It clearly didn't mean to me what you decided that it meant to you - you still haven't taken on board the fact that research reactors aren't power reactors, and that reactors that make medical isotopes might not be either.

I'm not going to take you seriously enough even to look.

Which explains how stupid libs like you stay so ignorant.

We aren't ignorant, We just don't share your favourite delusions.

You may want to see it as ignorance, but in fact we are well aware of the false "facts" twits like you chose to believe, and have skills - which you lack - which enable us to include them in our rather more complete views of the world (which does include the possibility that we can get stuff wrong from time to time, which people like you, krw and Cursitor Doom seem to exclude).

You've made about 5 posts on this now, but you won't spend one minute
to find out the truth.

I know what you think is "the truth". Pity about that.

> Thanks for representing for the libs!

Thanks for representing the gullible idiots. You make the species look even more contemptible with every brainlessly repetitious post.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:33f5171e-0833-484d-9a84-393f426db2b4@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie
wrote:

BS. If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating
weather calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be
going all out on nuclear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of
US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing,
generates 1.6%. Those are the f
acts.

Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with
the lack o
f reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor
match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same
problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of
technical reasons for economic reasons.

That's not true and MIT says so. In fact they say they are good
for being able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind. You
know, like when clouds show up?

http://news.mit.edu/2018/flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-mo
re-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid-0425

Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they
are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This
capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in
demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also
provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed
to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor
designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and
Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older
reactors now in service.






They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand
resulting in l
ess than 50% duty cycle.

Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base
load. What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like
when a cloud shows up.







So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to
our total
energy production is at face value fallacious.

BS. MIT says so. And even if it were true, we could use nuclear
for a lot more than 20%. And shouldn't we? The climate change
folks say the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does
that in a big and real way. After two decades of talk and
actually putting up a lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power
comes from solar.




We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity.
I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the
max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW,
that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply
would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot
power should something go offline. But then nuke plants are
inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they
turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to
dump 100%. Just very expensive.

So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we
can't solve
the carbon problem with it.

Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far
more serious limitations. And at 1.6% of power from solar after
all the harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher
electric bills, it sure hasn't done much.

Nearly all power plants now also have gas turbine boost gen sets
for demand response.

Some generate purely from gas turbines

 

[Rick C]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 4:09:35 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

BS. If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather
calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out
on nuclear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after
all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons.

That's not true and MIT says so. In fact they say they are good for being
able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind. You know, like when
clouds show up?

http://news.mit.edu/2018/flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-more-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid-0425

Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service.






They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle.

Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base load.
What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like when a cloud
shows up.







So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total energy production is at face value fallacious.

BS. MIT says so. And even if it were true, we could use nuclear for
a lot more than 20%. And shouldn't we? The climate change folks say
the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does that in a big
and real way. After two decades of talk and actually putting up a
lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power comes from solar.

You didn't even read what I wrote. MIT is talking about the technical limitations of nuclear reactors. I said the "economic" issues because they are so expensive they have to be run flat out to be affordable. Gas plants are very inexpensive to build and the lion's share of the cost in running them is the fuel. Stop running them and your fuel cost goes to zero. So for variable load you use gas, for base load you use nuclear... if it is still affordable even then. No one has to spend many billions of dollars or take a decade to build a gas power plant or any other type either. Just nuclear.

We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity. I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very expensive.

So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve the carbon problem with it.

Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far more
serious limitations. And at 1.6% of power from solar after all the
harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher electric
bills, it sure hasn't done much.

You still don't get it. The issue with solar and wind is variability in supply which can be mitigated with storage. I suppose you can mitigate the inflexibility of nuclear with storage too, but not the high price tag.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 6:09:35 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

BS. If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather
calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out
on nuclear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after
all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the
facts.

Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons.

That's not true and MIT says so. In fact they say they are good for being
able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind. You know, like when
clouds show up?

http://news.mit.edu/2018/flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-more-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid-0425

"Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service."

They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle.

Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base load.

Bit it's expensive, so why would we?

What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like when a cloud
shows up.

So you need power storage, and an extended grid so that clouds showing up in one place will be compensated by clouds going away from another.

That means high voltage DC links - geographic averaging only works well over long distances.

So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total energy production is at face value fallacious.

BS. MIT says so.

MIT says that reactors can be run at lower full output. They don't go into the economics of running a very expensive (lots of invested capital) nuclear reactor at less than full power for a lot of the time.

And even if it were true, we could use nuclear for
a lot more than 20%. And shouldn't we? The climate change folks say
the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does that in a big
and real way. After two decades of talk and actually putting up a
lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power comes from solar.

We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity. I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very expensive.

As the MIT study says, you can use control rods to adjust the actual amount of fission going on in the reactor. Not all neutron captures lead to immediate fission, and consequent immediate neutron emissions. The half-lives of the eventual neutron emitters are around several minutes (which is what makes fission reactors controllable) the and the moderators in the pile slow down fast neutrons (about 20,000 km/sec) to about 2.7km/sec making them more likely to be captured, so rapid adjustment of the heat coming out isn't an option.

So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve the carbon problem with it.

Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far more
serious limitations. And at 1.6% of power from solar after all the
harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher electric
bills, it sure hasn't done much.

This is a remarkably fatuous non-argument, even by Trader4's abysmally low standards.

Solar and wind now supply 8% of the US electricity demand, and the proportion is rising rapidly.

Trader4 doesn't seem to be aware of the consequences of economies of scale.

Anything that you can mass produce gets cheaper if you can produce it in higher volume. Typically a factor of ten scale up in production volume halves the unit price.

This has happened twice with solar cells in recent years. Germany invested a lot in higher volume production about twenty years ago, and China trumped them about a decade later. The Chinese effort made solar cells cheap enough that they could compete with conventional power generation in favourable locations, and they now account for 1% of global electricity production, and the proportion is rising rapidly.

By the time the proportion hits 10% the unit price of solar cells will have halved again, and they will be competitive power sources pretty much anywhere.

Wind turbines are also getting cheaper, but a lot of their cost is the tower that that supports the blades and the generator, so the advantages of mass production aren't quite as dramatic.

The world is changing rapidly and Trader4 can't see it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.

There are over a hundred in development or production.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

We had the cold war dead, and folks were all NOT making nukes.
Fucking Putin brought it all back, and started ignoring the
agreements made. How quaint.

"I'm ordering our bombers back to fail-safe. We might have to go
through this thing after all." --General Beringer ("War Games")

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 12:57:08 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 4:09:35 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 11:08:52 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 7:39:31 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

BS. If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather
calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out
on nuclear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after
all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Proponents of non-renewable power sources cite the issues with the lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor match between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nukes have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for economic reasons.

That's not true and MIT says so. In fact they say they are good for being
able to vary demand as needed by solar and wind. You know, like when
clouds show up?

http://news.mit.edu/2018/flexible-nuclear-operation-can-help-add-more-wind-and-solar-to-the-grid-0425

Nuclear power plants generally operate at full capacity, but they are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability lets them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulation and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Jenkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors now in service.






They are just too expensive to run up and down with demand resulting in less than 50% duty cycle.

Even if that were true, we can use nuclear for the stable base load.
What runs up and down, is solar and wind, you know, like when a cloud
shows up.







So the idea of wildly increasing the contribution of nuclear to our total energy production is at face value fallacious.

BS. MIT says so. And even if it were true, we could use nuclear for
a lot more than 20%. And shouldn't we? The climate change folks say
the planet is doomed if we don't cut CO2, nuclear does that in a big
and real way. After two decades of talk and actually putting up a
lot of solar, a whopping 1.6% of our power comes from solar.

You didn't even read what I wrote. MIT is talking about the technical limitations of nuclear reactors. I said the "economic" issues because they are so expensive they have to be run flat out to be affordable.

BS. MIT was proposing nuclear power plants as being compatible with
being used in conjunction with alternate power production today. It would
be pretty stupid to be writing that if economics makes it impossible.


> Gas plants are very inexpensive to build and the lion's share of the cost in running them is the fuel.

Last time I checked we were supposed to stop using them, because they
are killing the planet.






Stop running them and your fuel cost goes to zero.

Stop running a nuke and your fuel cost goes to zero too.


> So for variable load you use gas, for base load you use nuclear..

Sure, but we're supposed to get rid of the nat gas, AOC says the
world will end in ten years. In which case having nuclear there
when it's cloudy or night, is perfectly viable. Just ask the
50 operators that are building them right now or the 50 others
in the planning stages. I would expect with their $$$ on the line
they have a better understanding of the viability than you do.



.. if it is still affordable even then. No one has to spend many billions of dollars or take a decade to build a gas power plant or any other type either. Just nuclear.

We might be able to reach 40% of our peak generation capacity. I checked the data for the region including Pennsylvania and the max usage was around 140 GW and the minimum was about 73 GW, that's 2:1. Trying to use nuclear for even half that supply would be risky since it would mean finding a way to dump a lot power should something go offline. But then nuke plants are inherently inefficient dumping twice the amount of heat as they turn into electricity, so maybe it wouldn't be a big deal to dump 100%. Just very expensive.

So while we could increase our reliance on nuclear power, we can't solve the carbon problem with it.

Then we should chuck solar and wind too, because they have far more
serious limitations. And at 1.6% of power from solar after all the
harping, all the subsidies, screwing the poor with higher electric
bills, it sure hasn't done much.

You still don't get it. The issue with solar and wind is variability in supply which can be mitigated with storage.

Oh BS. The ability to use storage is very limited. You can only do it
in special cases, eg hydro, where you can use an existing lake or
create a new reservoir. And when you try to do that, the same tree
huggers that block everything will be there complaining about the impact
to some frog and they will try to block it.




> I suppose you can mitigate the inflexibility of nuclear with storage too, but not the high price tag.

That's silly. Per MIT, just turn the dial back.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:52:16 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 5:59:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:01:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.

What fifty nuclear plants?


Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them.

He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else.

ROFL! I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in
other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him
to say I'm wrong, because I said 50? ROFL. You're amazing. Fifty or
fifty three, who the hell cares, except a troll like you. My point is
100% correct.

Your point is 100% wishful thinking. If you had a little more sense you might be aware of the fact.

Fifty reactors was always a suspiciously round number. Fifty more being planned even more so.

Oh my! What if it's actually 47 or 53? Who the hell cares? The
claim was made that there are no new nuclear power plants being
built and that was WRONG. You really are quite an amazing piece
of work.

And DL didn't say "quite a few' were research, he said some. So,
let's recap your lying lib methods I said there were
50 nuclear power reactors currently under construction and 50 more in the
planning stages. DL claims that I'm wrong, it's actually 53, as if that
nit matters. Now, IDK what he added beyond the fifty POWER reactors,
neither do you and I don't care. But now you take his increased
number which may include three research reactors on top of the 50
POWER reactors, and try to use that to claim that I'm wrong.

You want to imagine that his 53 planned reactors include exactly three research reactors?

And there you go again. He didn't say there were 53 'planned", he
said there were 53 being BUILT. He later posted that there are
50 MORE in the planning stages. Compare that to what I said from
the start. I said 50 under construction, 50 more in the planning
stages. I was right, but you just drone on, nit pick, twist, lie
and turn.

did you figure out how Google works yet, fool?

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:23:45 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ac6b6869-4633-41dd-b3c7-3ecca5ec3eab@googlegroups.com:

He was talking about nuclear reactors, not power reactors - not a
distinction that you seem to recognise.


There are over a hundred in development or production.

Bingo! Exactly what I said, 50 being built, 50 in the planning
stages. Thank you.

Since full scale power plants and their reactors are the pinnacle
of that crowd, I'd say that most of that hundred are smaller, other
use developments with many being produced for satellites, ships,
submarines.

And that is incorrect. There are 50 nuclear POWER plants under
construction. Geeez, this is simple stuff. It's not like we're
trying to figure out the number of crickets in Bolivia.

The idiot Russians are the only dumbfucks who would put radioactive
material in a missile as the booster medium. How stupid.

That's true. We started prototypes in the 50s, but gave up on
it because of the contamination issues. And that was 60 years ago.
The Russians apparently think it's OK in today's world.

We had the cold war dead, and folks were all NOT making nukes.
Fucking Putin brought it all back, and started ignoring the
agreements made. How quaint.

+1

And it;s only part of what he's been up to. Much else is just like
the old evil empire, eg Crimea, invading half the rest of Ukraine,
shooting down MH17, opponents poisoned and dead...

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:45:12 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 5:59:56 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 10:01:45 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 11:12:32 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:01:35 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 8:21:25 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 10:59:23 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, August 19, 2019 at 12:45:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 9:26:23 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

19% vs what I said, 20%.

You left out the bit about declining, and the point that renewables were 8% and rising rapidly.

What a nit to pick, stupid lib.

What a typical Trader4 text chop. He snips the meat of the post and picks the nit.

It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way.

How?

Stupid lib. The same way those 50 plants are under construction around the world.

What fifty nuclear plants?


Ask your butt buddy, DL. He can use Google and found them.

He found 53, not fifty, and pointed out that quite a few of them were research reactors. A few more are going to be exclusively used for making medical isotopes - there's one small reactor in the Netherlands that does nothing else.


ROFL! I say 50, showing that nuclear is viable and being built in
other countries, DL says it's 53 and now you have the balls like him
to say I'm wrong, because I said 50?

You said fifty power reactors, DL said 53 reactors in total, including an unspecified number of research reactors, and I pointed out that reactors used to produce medical isotopes might show up in such a list too.

What that reveals is that you don't appreciate that there is more than one kind of nuclear reactor, which devalues your under-informed opinion even further.

No, what all that proves is I was right and you two are pathetically
nit picking, obfuscating and being shysters, as usual. Hello?
The claim was made that no one was building nuclear power plants anywhere
any more because they are economically not viable. I stated there
were 50 under construction, I was right. Case closed. Maybe you could
learn to use Google instead of embarrassing yourself? Instead you
just prove how libs lie and lie.


Rest of your BS flushed! Ah, the air is so much better here now.