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

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 11:07:10 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

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 isn't much better at concocting replies than Trader4. He's probably not as stupid, but there's a lot of room at the bottom.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 9:49:29 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

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:

<snip>

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.

Trader4 is too dim to realise that he is troll.

> I suppose we should go to the Association of Florists for data?

And idiot like you might do that.

People comparing - say - various different sorts of utility power generators could be expected to take a more objective view of nuclear power generating plants than world-nuclear.org.

You couldn't even find that.

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?

How do you thing I found the stuff about the duff steel castings in French nuclear reactors (which you snipped without marking the snip)? You really are remarkably stupid.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 9:43:07 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

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.

Trader4 specialises in missing the point. It's what really stupid people do.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 9:41:10 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

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.

You miss the point, as I seem to have mentioned before.

The question is where you are getting your half-baked numbers, not what the right answer is - since nuclear reactors aren't the solution to anthropogenic global warming, much as you'd like them to be, the "right" answer doesn't get us anywhere.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie 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.

They are being built, but that does NOT show they are economically "viable".. Countries often do things that are not great ideas or even good ideas. They even do things that are bad ideas. The fact that they are being done doesn't show they are good ideas or economically viable.

How many nuclear reactors which started construction in the last 10 years finished on time (even remotely) and on budget (even remotely)? That would be a better indicator of being "viable". Even then, the life cycle cost is seldom known or factored into the decision when these things are planned.

Stop lying and ignoring the facts. But
it's typical, it's what you do.

When you saying things like this it seems you aren't really looking for the truth. Just look at the facts and don't bother with the name calling.

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!

This has nothing to do with politics. This is engineering and economics.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 10:03:03 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 11:07:10 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
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 isn't much better at concocting replies than Trader4. He's probably not as stupid, but there's a lot of room at the bottom.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You seem to forget. Higher IQ, better university, and more money.

Dan

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:ea37b90f-d3be-4b1d-8cb3-4b7e5fb298ba@googlegroups.com:

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.

--

Anything claiming to be hypersonic would be at altitude. Down here
in the thick air, speeds like that melt and burn up meteor fragments,
remember? Less likely anything truly reliable is running.

The projectiles we fire from our big railguns are practically a
plasma by the time they reach their targets.

Air molecules hurt when they hit that hard. And there are so many
down here at sea level.

Hypersonic missile claims... experimentors.

We are also experimenting with really pointy, really slick and fast
torpedoes.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:cade0262-7a3b-41f4-
a0cb-7a1554def85b@googlegroups.com:

Is hypersonic considered cruising?

'cruising' is not about velocity. It is about keeping velocity.

It is about max fuel economy at max velocity.

A jet used to require afterburners, but now GE makes engines which
allow supersonic flight without afterburners, and they call it
'supercruise'.

So if the thing can go long term at some hyper-velocity, it would
likely be properly labeled as cruising.

It is about the ease with which a powerplant can maintain a rate
once a forward velocity is reached.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:4e471860-9925-45c6-
94b6-944ef7d1385c@googlegroups.com:

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.

If it is so simple then post the citation, asswipe.

 

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote in
news:55745972-1041-40da-895d-b29c6e2c8db5@googlegroups.com:

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.

What are they doing with it spooling up an atmospheric
turbine/turboprop?

It looked like a missile taking off vertically. That takes a lot of
immediately spent juice. Must be a strange design.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:55:27 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:4e471860-9925-45c6-
94b6-944ef7d1385c@googlegroups.com:


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.



If it is so simple then post the citation, asswipe.

What? Now you too? First you confirmed that 50+ nuclear plants
were being built, now you need a citation?

Bizarre, very bizarre. Do you have multiple personality disorder?

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 11:26:37 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie 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.

They are being built, but that does NOT show they are economically "viable".

Well, thank you for acknowledging the fact that 50 nuclear power plants
are being built. Maybe now you can help Bill?



> Countries often do things that are not great ideas or even good ideas. They even do things that are bad ideas. The fact that they are being done doesn't show they are good ideas or economically viable.

It's certainly possible that some of them might be, but when you have
50 being built, it strongly suggests that they are economically viable.
And when did that matter? Solar isn't economically viable without
subsidies, without forcing utilities to buy it, but I don't hear you
complaining about that. I guess if we can subsidize that because the
planet is going to turn into hell from CO2, we could also subsidize
nuclear too.

How many nuclear reactors which started construction in the last 10 years finished on time (even remotely) and on budget (even remotely)? That would be a better indicator of being "viable". Even then, the life cycle cost is seldom known or factored into the decision when these things are planned..

But those building these 50 and the other 50 surely know all that.
They would be pretty stupid to be committing economic suicide.

Stop lying and ignoring the facts. But
it's typical, it's what you do.

When you saying things like this it seems you aren't really looking for the truth.

But that is the truth! Geez, that stupid fool troll has been lying and
denying for post after post after post. You didn't have any trouble
finding out that 50 nukes are under construction. Maybe you can
straighten Bill out?

Just look at the facts and don't bother with the name calling.


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!

This has nothing to do with politics. This is engineering and economics.

Oh, BS. It has everything to do with politics, which is why Bill
won't use Google to find the readily available facts.

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 4:02:35 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote in
news:55745972-1041-40da-895d-b29c6e2c8db5@googlegroups.com:

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.


What are they doing with it spooling up an atmospheric
turbine/turboprop?

It looked like a missile taking off vertically. That takes a lot of
immediately spent juice. Must be a strange design.

Maybe it uses conventional methods to get it airborne and less conventional methods once in flight.

Don't know, just guessing. Not even an informed guess.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 5:28:31 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 11:26:37 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie 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.

They are being built, but that does NOT show they are economically "viable".

Well, thank you for acknowledging the fact that 50 nuclear power plants
are being built. Maybe now you can help Bill?

You and Bill can sort out your own issues. I find when people are just not discussing things rationally, there's not much point in continuing.

Countries often do things that are not great ideas or even good ideas. They even do things that are bad ideas. The fact that they are being done doesn't show they are good ideas or economically viable.

It's certainly possible that some of them might be, but when you have
50 being built, it strongly suggests that they are economically viable.
And when did that matter? Solar isn't economically viable without
subsidies, without forcing utilities to buy it, but I don't hear you
complaining about that. I guess if we can subsidize that because the
planet is going to turn into hell from CO2, we could also subsidize
nuclear too.

Solar is getting cheaper every year. The subsidies are not so it will be used at all, they are so the adoption rate increases rapidly enough to make them economical more quickly. As Bill points out (even he finds an acorn once in a while... said for your benefit, not to put down Bill) increasing production rates lowers costs. Nuclear costs have been increasing dramatically all the while leaving an unknown future expense of waste disposal.

Consider that in the US, the federal government is compensating nuke plants for having to store waste on site when the disposal facilities were supposed to be open. New reactors won't have that benefit. They will need to store waste on site on their own dime.

The risk issues are why nuclear is no longer popular. Ignore the risk and nukes can be used profitably if you don't have gas like we do. Not all countries have the same resources.

How many nuclear reactors which started construction in the last 10 years finished on time (even remotely) and on budget (even remotely)? That would be a better indicator of being "viable". Even then, the life cycle cost is seldom known or factored into the decision when these things are planned.

But those building these 50 and the other 50 surely know all that.
They would be pretty stupid to be committing economic suicide.

Know what exactly? That companies promise construction dates? Yes, many projects of many types are not finished on time and on budget. But the nuclear industry has not been doing much for some 30 years or so and more recent history is proving what a mess it is when done "properly". No, I don't think the two EPR (if I have the name right) projects had any idea of what it would actually take to get them finished. Actually, they still don't know since neither one is finished and about every six months the schedule gets pushed out another 4 months.

Stop lying and ignoring the facts. But
it's typical, it's what you do.

When you saying things like this it seems you aren't really looking for the truth.

But that is the truth! Geez, that stupid fool troll has been lying and
denying for post after post after post. You didn't have any trouble
finding out that 50 nukes are under construction. Maybe you can
straighten Bill out?

Talk to fool trolls about fool trolls. I don't care about them. Talk to me about facts.

Just look at the facts and don't bother with the name calling.


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!

This has nothing to do with politics. This is engineering and economics.

Oh, BS. It has everything to do with politics, which is why Bill
won't use Google to find the readily available facts.

I mean talking about "libs" and whatever the alternatives are is not productive. That's just a variation of talking about "fool trolls".

I'm not interested.

--

Rick C.

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

 

On Tuesday, August 20, 2019 at 9:18:51 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

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.

Somewhere in the article about the Russian CM they say cruising speed is Mach 3 which is doable. The missile people say hypersonic is anything above Mach 5, but usually much more, like Mach 10.

This isn't the 1950s anymore, so if they want the missile to be a complete surprise it has to hug ground level.

Higher order acceleration maneuver within a few seconds prior to terminal impact is good.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 4:32:52 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 10:03:03 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 11:07:10 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
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 isn't much better at concocting replies than Trader4. He's probably not as stupid, but there's a lot of room at the bottom.

You seem to forget. Higher IQ, better university, and more money.

I'm well aware of your frequently reiterated delusions.

Like Trader4, you believe in argument by persistent reiteration, which does seem to evidence of the kind of cognitive defect that doesn't get detected by IQ tests, but is still crippling in real life. Pencil and paper tests do have their weaknesses.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 7:29:52 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:55:27 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in news:4e471860-9925-45c6-
94b6-944ef7d1385c@googlegroups.com:


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.

If it is so simple then post the citation, asswipe.

What? Now you too? First you confirmed that 50+ nuclear plants
were being built, now you need a citation?

Bizarre, very bizarre. Do you have multiple personality disorder?

Trader4 wants everybody to be a simple minded as he is. The problem - one that he seems incapable of recognising - is that different groups, with different interests, report different "facts".

Nobody can report the whole truth, and even the most careful of reporters have to be selective in what they report. Less careful reporters select what they report to create a report that will appeal to their target audience, which can involve lying by omission. There are also persistent liars - Donald J Trump is a prominent example - who tell their audience what they think that the audience wants to hear.

Trader4 is the same kind of gullible twit as John Larkin and Cursitor Doom who latch onto the story they like, even if it looks ludicrous to more skeptical observers. Unlike those two, he doesn't provide links to the misinformation that has taken his fancy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 7:28:31 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 11:26:37 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 7:30:23 AM UTC-4, Whoey Louie 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.

Trader4 doesn't notice that "over a hundred" isn't a precise number.

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.

They are being built, but that does NOT show they are economically "viable".

Well, thank you for acknowledging the fact that 50 nuclear power plants
are being built. Maybe now you can help Bill?

He hasn't posted any link to the evidence on which he bases his claims, so he's probably being gulled by the same kind of optimistic counting that litters the web. This isn't helpful information.

Countries often do things that are not great ideas or even good ideas. They even do things that are bad ideas. The fact that they are being done doesn't show they are good ideas or economically viable.

It's certainly possible that some of them might be, but when you have
50 being built, it strongly suggests that they are economically viable.

Not really. Politicians love dramatic innovations. They don't care about the price or the eventual effectiveness - all that matters is the wow factor with the electorate. Trump's border wall is a fine example.

A business publication for the border wall industry would be happy to count that as planned project, and might well decide that the short existing stretches of fence made it a project under construction.

And when did that matter? Solar isn't economically viable without
subsidies, without forcing utilities to buy it, but I don't hear you
complaining about that.

That was true a few years ago, but Trader4 hasn't noticed that China has started manufacturing high output solar cells in high volume, using an approach worked out in Australia.

https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/unsw-and-leadmicro-announce-joint-initiative-develop-next-generation-high

The high volume manufacture halved the unit price of the solar cells, and the extra output per cell helped too. They don't need subsidies any more - or at least not in places as close to the equator as Australia.

I guess if we can subsidize that because the
planet is going to turn into hell from CO2, we could also subsidize
nuclear too.

Why bother? Nuclear power plants are big, take ages to build and seem to get more expensive as construction proceeds.

How many nuclear reactors which started construction in the last 10 years finished on time (even remotely) and on budget (even remotely)? That would be a better indicator of being "viable". Even then, the life cycle cost is seldom known or factored into the decision when these things are planned.

But those building these 50 and the other 50 surely know all that.

In the same way that Trump knows that his border wall is never going to be built and wouldn't work if it got built. That doesn't stop it from being a great talking point when he's misleading the deplorables.

> They would be pretty stupid to be committing economic suicide.

Since the politicians involved will mostly be dead by the time the economic defects become obvious, they couldn't care less.

Stop lying and ignoring the facts. But
it's typical, it's what you do.

When you saying things like this it seems you aren't really looking for the truth.

But that is the truth!

Trader4, like krw, thinks that whatever he believes is "the truth". He doesn't know enough to realise that other people use the word in a different way.

<snip>

This has nothing to do with politics. This is engineering and economics.

Oh, BS. It has everything to do with politics, which is why Bill
won't use Google to find the readily available facts.

I do use Google to find a whole treasure house of misleading information. What I want Trader4 to do is to identify the particular chunk of misleading information he has chosen to believe. Presumably his choice of preferred propaganda will be driven by his political opinions, which do seem to be remarkably simple-minded.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote in
news:1caa140b-0317-4543-b2fa-a2806191fa2e@googlegroups.com:

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.

It would work, it's just that the target would always be a toss up
somewhere between launch point and max traverse.

No matter what got dialed in as the target.

 

Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:02741272-be86-4008-98f0-b162661fda4c@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 3:55:27 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Whoey Louie <trader4@optonline.net> wrote in
news:4e471860-9925-45c6- 94b6-944ef7d1385c@googlegroups.com:


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.



If it is so simple then post the citation, asswipe.

What? Now you too? First you confirmed that 50+ nuclear plants
were being built, now you need a citation?

Bizarre, very bizarre. Do you have multiple personality disorder?

Oh look... ignore the question and point fingers and make retarded
assessments and remarks... again. How quaint. NOT.