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

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.

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.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.

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")

 

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
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.

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.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part. This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

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.

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.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.

That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

 

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
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.

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.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

This was the U.S. project:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile
It was low altitude, and relied on an internal gyroscope for navigation. They were dreaming if they thought this would ever work, and it didn't even get into an airframe. The project was canceled.

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 11:38:20 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

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.

It's not impossible. It's impractical. That's why so many plants here in the US are NOT happening. Two reactors in South Carolina totally failed after spending 2 BILLION dollars!!!

Dominion got approval for a new reactor at North Anna after spending half a billion dollars on the paperwork. Now they have no plans to actually build the reactor because they aren't willing to take the risk. Why do you ignore the facts?

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.

I'm pointing out the difference in economics that makes MIT's idea of load following nukes a bad idea. Paying for nukes can't work if you don't keep then running full bore and even then it is questionable. So no one is going to throttle back a nuke. Try to keep up with the conversation rather than just trying to argue every little point.

Stop running them and your fuel cost goes to zero.

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

Now that I have your attention, maybe you can understand the issue. Gas plants can be throttled back or even shut down entirely and still be practical because most of the cost is the fuel. Nukes have tremendous capital costs which have to be amortize over as much of their operating life as possible while also having very significant non-operating costs.

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.

Yep, get rid of both nukes and fossil fuels is the idea.

BTW, AOC never said the world will end in 10 years. That comment was taken out of context. If you continue to believe that is what she said, you are just being silly and clearly don't wish to actually discuss an issue rationally.

Actually, nukes are often built as a symbol of prestige or in other cases to allow the country to be involved in the nuclear industry in order to eventually work toward nuclear weapons.

BTW, I recall some weeks ago Iran announced an end to observing the enrichment limit under the treaty the US seems to saying is void. Do you really thing Iran has nuke capabilities because they need the electricity???

. 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.

Hmmm... if you start with the idea that something is impossible, then you will have a hard time understanding why it works.

Storage is happening and growing. That's a natural fact. Check out the 100 MW storage facility Tesla built for Australia. Look up the many other examples that have been built and are being built. It's happening whether or not you think it is a good idea. Duh!

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.

Turn the dial back but keep sending out the bills since some 70% of your costs are still active.

"The US Nuclear Energy Institute suggests that the cost of fuel for a coal-fired plant is 78% of total costs, for a gas-fired plant the figure is 87%, and for nuclear the uranium is about 14% (or 34% if all front end and waste management costs are included)."

Are you actually interested in learning about this or do you just have an agenda?

BTW, I learn a lot in these discussions. I have to get the real facts when discussing things with someone like you since you so often go off half cocked.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:28:59 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

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.

If you don't care about the exact numbers - and can't tell us where they came from - any number you do claim is unreliable.

If you aren't paying attention to exact numbers, and exactly what kind of nuclear reactor is being planned or built, you input is worthless - as has been obvious for quite some time now.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:15:36 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

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.

You are still convinced you are right, which comes as no surprise.

The problem is that you haven't told us where your claim that the are fifty reactors under construction came from, and you persist in imagining that your unsupported opinion is worth posting. This persistence makes your opinion worthless.

Case closed. Maybe you could
learn to use Google instead of embarrassing yourself? Instead you
just prove how libs lie and lie.

You claim that Google would support your point of view, but you are totally incapable of demonstrating the point, and evade the issue by claiming that everybody except you is lying.

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

Trader4 does like the smell of his own BS.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:22:21 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

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.

It is not exactly what you said, but your enthusiasm for reiterating favourite line of BS blinds you to that inconvenient fact.

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.

But you can't post a link to anybody credible who makes this particular claim. The fact that fifty is a nice round number suggests that you are recycling rhetoric rather than referring to a verifiable fact.

Geeez, this is simple stuff. It's not like we're
trying to figure out the number of crickets in Bolivia.

It may be simple, but you can't show us how you worked out your particular number.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:38:20 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

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.

Academics do this all the time. "Technically capable" doesn't say anything about economic feasibility.

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.

Raising atmospheric CO2 levels, which isn't remotely killing the planet, but isn't doing anything good for our food production, and may end up killing a lot of us (which wouldn't do the planet any noticeable harm).

Stop running them and your fuel cost goes to zero.

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

Looking after the very radioactive nuclear reactor and the equally radioactive spent fuel continues to be expensive long after you've stopped using a nuclear reactor to generate power. That's what has been making nuclear electric power generators progressively less attractive as the regulators get pickier about the arrangements to deal with what's left over after the reactor has been shut down.

Since we still haven't got any acceptable scheme for dealing with long term waste, the price seems likely to keep on rising for while yet.

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.

She didn't. She was putting words into the mouth of an imagined dim millenial.

You are much too dim to appreciate the distinction. She set the threshold at the social intelligence of a sea cucumber, and you clearly fall short of that.

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.

So identify them, so we can ask them.

In the meantime, they are just part of your imaginary chorus of non-existent operators, invented in the vain hope making you sound convincing.

I would expect with their $$$ on the line
they have a better understanding of the viability than you do.

If they exist. Since you can't point to any of them, and the US operators who are trying to construct new reactors are financial disaster areas, it may be that the reason that they have put their hypothetical dollars on the line is they don't have a good grasp of the financial viability of the projects.

> . 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.

They don't have to. Other power plants tend to be a lot cheaper. Though the Three Gorges Dam in China did cost $31 billion.

Hydroelectric plants do have to be scaled to match the local geology.

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

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

<snip>

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.

The ability to use storage is the ability to buy more of it. Pumped water storage does depend on geology. Battery storage doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded

pointed out - back in 2008 - that if everybody moved over to electric cars, the batteries in those cars would provide enough back-up for the entire utility grid. It wasn't an original idea then, but this is the first appearance I know of in a popular book

Private cars spend 95% of their time parked, and currently generate in the US - when they are moving - about 30% of the power available on the US national grid (which is going to have to be enlarged to meet the demand as electric cars get more popular.

If you run the numbers, the parked cars could deliver three times as much power as the beefed up grid, and deliver it for several hours. Rick C didn't like the idea when it showed up here, because it doesn't fit with the way he uses his car, but it would suite me fine.

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.

Sadly, this doesn't make the capital investment in the nuclear reactor any cheaper. At present they aren't price competitive when run flat out, and under-running them isn't going to make the capital any cheaper to service.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:38:52 AM UTC+10, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:54:11 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
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.

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.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.


That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.
Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Dunno the specifics of that development, but the only really long range navigation methodology available at the time was celestial navigation, and that would imply high altitude, very high, which sorta not makes it a cruise missile, except for the maneuverability part, but it does explain the MIRV part.

The distinction was between cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. Something hypersonic would have had to fly very high if it wasn't going to get burnt up by ram pressure heating, so celestial navigation could well have been an option.

> This new Russian development should be low altitude, which makes it invisible to radar, until it's too late to do anything about it of course. They do mention planning a route that skirts all known coverage zones until it gets to its target.

It can't be low altitude and hypersonic for very long. It might cruise barely subsonic at low altitude and go hypersonic close to target.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 4:54:11 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 2:38:11 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
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.

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.

They're not powering boosters with nuclear. They are building an infinite range cruise missile that's nuclear powered, and which may have hyper velocity capability. You can't do something like that with a non-nuclear source.

That is what I was referring to when I said the US had built
prototypes of similar back in the 50s. They used an unshielded
nuclear reactor to create the tremendous heat for a ramjet
engine for a big cruise missile type device. I guess it
shouldn't be called a cruise missile either, since it's
hypersonic. Is hypersonic considered cruising?

The distinction was between ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.

If the missile stayed inside the atmosphere it would be a cruise missile even if it were hypersonic. The temptation would be to fly it high enough to minimise ram heating of the flight surfaces, but that would make it easier to intercept.

The US one was planned to hold multiple warheads
that could be delivered to separate targets anywhere.
How they would do the targeting, have kept it on course as it
went across Russia or wherever back in the 50s, who knows.

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

Maybe that's one reason, besides the contamination, that the
US gave up on it. But DL is right, leave it to the Russians
to be actually developing it again 60 years later. Too bad
the thing didn't land on Putin.

Trader4 finally gets something right. But it was just as likely to land on Trump - not very likely at all.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-08-21, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:28:59 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
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.

If you don't care about the exact numbers - and can't tell us where they came from - any number you do claim is unreliable.

I googled: how many nuke reactors being built

and found this page:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/global-number-of-nuclear-reactors.aspx

There seems to be "about 50" listed there, the smallest is 29MW, but
most are over 500MW.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 8:10:45 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:15:36 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
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.

You are still convinced you are right, which comes as no surprise.

The problem is that you haven't told us where your claim that the are fifty reactors under construction came from, and you persist in imagining that your unsupported opinion is worth posting. This persistence makes your opinion worthless.

Typical stupid lib troll. You need someone else to do it for you.
There should be a new govt program to pay for google for you and
to have someone push the buttons. Your buddy DL easily found it.
Took me about 30 secs. And there is no point, you just deny, deny
deny, lie, lie lie. No matter what anyone presents, it's never
sufficient.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:31:22 PM UTC+10, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2019-08-21, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:28:59 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
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.

If you don't care about the exact numbers - and can't tell us where they came from - any number you do claim is unreliable.

I googled: how many nuke reactors being built

and found this page:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/global-number-of-nuclear-reactors.aspx

There seems to be "about 50" listed there, the smallest is 29MW, but
most are over 500MW.

This is the nuclear power industry talking about the nuclear power industry. The embarrassing details get left out.

France had a interesting scandal about steel castings with excessive carbon content which shout down eighteen of their fifty-odd nuclear reactors at one stage. It doesn't show up at all on that website.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:31:22 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2019-08-21, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:28:59 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
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.

If you don't care about the exact numbers - and can't tell us where they came from - any number you do claim is unreliable.

I googled: how many nuke reactors being built

and found this page:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/global-number-of-nuclear-reactors.aspx

There seems to be "about 50" listed there, the smallest is 29MW, but
most are over 500MW.

Bingo. Another guy that can use Google. That's three of us now, only
one dope can;t and lies and denies instead. Next it will be that your
source is lying.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 8:17:17 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:22:21 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
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.

It is not exactly what you said, but your enthusiasm for reiterating favourite line of BS blinds you to that inconvenient fact.

It is what I said and my position, that there are 50 nuclear power
plants being built, 50 more in the planning stages, shows that they
are economically viable. Stop lying and ignoring the facts. But
it's typical, it's what you do.

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.

But you can't post a link to anybody credible who makes this particular claim.

Google still broken down under, fool? Typical lib. I can't do it
myself, I want someone else to do my work for me. Waaaaah!

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:56 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:38:20 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
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.

Academics do this all the time.

Libs do this all the time: Lie

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:39:44 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:31:22 PM UTC+10, Jasen Betts wrote:
On 2019-08-21, Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:28:59 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
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.

If you don't care about the exact numbers - and can't tell us where they came from - any number you do claim is unreliable.

I googled: how many nuke reactors being built

and found this page:

https://www.world-nuclear.org/nuclear-basics/global-number-of-nuclear-reactors.aspx

There seems to be "about 50" listed there, the smallest is 29MW, but
most are over 500MW.

This is the nuclear power industry talking about the nuclear power industry. The embarrassing details get left out.

ROFL

Bingo! Right on cue. Just like I said, no point supplying you with
references, you just move on to the next stage of lying and denying,
which is why I wasn't going to play your troll game.
I suppose we should go to the Association of Florists for data?
And again, the names of the nuclear projects and countries are
listed, you could just Google them to verify, but instead, you just
post more BS and further embarrass yourself. Or is Google still
broken down under?

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:43:07 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

Bingo. Another guy that can use Google. That's three of us now, only
one dope can;t and lies and denies instead. Next it will be that your
source is lying.

There are more than three that can use Google. But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Dan

 

On Wed, 21 Aug 2019 04:30:17 -0700 (PDT), Whoey Louie
<trader4@optonline.net> wrote:

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 8:17:17 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 1:22:21 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
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.

It is not exactly what you said, but your enthusiasm for reiterating favourite line of BS blinds you to that inconvenient fact.

It is what I said and my position, that there are 50 nuclear power
plants being built, 50 more in the planning stages, shows that they
are economically viable. Stop lying and ignoring the facts. But
it's typical, it's what you do.





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.

But you can't post a link to anybody credible who makes this particular claim.

Google still broken down under, fool? Typical lib. I can't do it
myself, I want someone else to do my work for me. Waaaaah!

Children, stop talking about yourselves and discuss the topic now and
then.