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

[Whoey Louie]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 6:24:35 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

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.

On this, there never was a start to discussing by Bill. He just lied and
denied. I presented the point that contrary to the claims made, there
are a lot of nuclear power plants being built around the world, 50.
He just proceeded to lie and deny. It's his method.

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.

Well, I hope we get there before the govt goes broke.



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.

Nuclear costs would come down dramatically too, if we adopted cookie cutter
designs and stopped all the roadblocks thrown up in their way.

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.

Yes, see the above. The crazies blocked Yucca Mountain, the govt let them,
and as a result instead of having waste in one secure location, it's
sitting all over the country.

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.

I don't disagree that there are risks. I just find it interesting that almost
all the same folks that tell us the world is going to be screwed unless we
dramatically reduce CO2, won't use one of the fast, readily available ways
to do it. Seems the risk from a nuclear power disaster would pale to the
end of the world in ten years, as AOC put it.

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?

They know the history, the issues, the economics of nuclear power,
the current costs, the future projections,
they are in the business and they are willing to build them.
I'd say that counts a lot more than internet pontificating.
Which of course is why Bill won't admit to the fact that 50 are being
built.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 10:38:30 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

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

No delusions. ( 1 ) I really did go to Harvard ( 2 ) I have read some of your posts and have a fairly good idea of your intelligence ( 3 ) I may not know your net worth, but I know mine plus or minus a million or two and the chances of your being richer is small. Certainly I do not have any cognitive defect that crippled me in real life.

Dan

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 6:42:54 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

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.

One reason the US gave up on this in the early 60s was that ICBMs
had advanced so much and were being deployed. Given that they had
excellent inertial guidance systems for those to get them to target,
seems possible they could have come up with similar for the nuclear
powered cruise missile. Certainly in less than a decade from the time
the nuclear cruise missile development ended, inertial navigation was
going into even commercial aircraft.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 12:18:04 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 10:38:30 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:


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

No delusions. ( 1 ) I really did go to Harvard

And why would this matter?

> ( 2 ) I have read some of your posts and have a fairly good idea of your intelligence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

You may have read my posts, but you have never responded to them in a way that has demonstrated any evidence of technically informed intelligence, and it doesn't strike me as likely that you have comprehended them.

> ( 3 ) I may not know your net worth, but I know mine plus or minus a million or two and the chances of your being richer is small. Certainly I do not have any cognitive defect that crippled me in real life.

The problem with you estimate of my wealth is that you don't have any evidence at all. Your original estimate was based on the idea that I lived in a pokey inner city apartment, and you took a while to take on board that it has harbour views and is worth about as much as your house.

You know even less about my other assets, and if you had any sense you'd give up on the fishing expeditions. Sadly you don't seem to have much sense at all. See point 2.

As for "not having any cognitive defect that crippled me in real life". How would you know? Lots of stupid people find a place in life where their stupidity isn't a problem.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 12:49:53 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 6:42:54 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
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.

One reason the US gave up on this in the early 60s was that ICBMs
had advanced so much and were being deployed. Given that they had
excellent inertial guidance systems for those to get them to target,
seems possible they could have come up with similar for the nuclear
powered cruise missile. Certainly in less than a decade from the time
the nuclear cruise missile development ended, inertial navigation was
going into even commercial aircraft.

It didn't get all that far. The Global Positioning System trumped it after a few years.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 12:39:06 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 6:24:35 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
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.

On this, there never was a start to discussing by Bill.

Nor by Trader4. He's an enthusiast for argument by persistent repetition.

> He just lied and denied.

Trader4 thinks that his assertions are always true, and any suggestion that they might not be has to be a lie.

I presented the point that contrary to the claims made, there
are a lot of nuclear power plants being built around the world, 50.

He presented the claim, He never bothered to post a link to any web-site that might support this assertion, and whenever anybody else comes up with such a link that isn't wildly discordant with that claim, he imagines that that this validates his specific claim.

> He just proceeded to lie and deny. It's his method.

It the appropriate response to argument by repeated unsubstantiated assertion.

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.

Only to Trader4.

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.

Well, I hope we get there before the govt goes broke.

We've got there.

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.

Nuclear costs would come down dramatically too, if we adopted cookie cutter
designs and stopped all the roadblocks thrown up in their way.

The boiling water reactor that Rickover developed for nuclear submarines became a cookie cutter design for commercial nuclear reactors. It hasn't made them cheap.

The "roadblocks" are more the realisation that nuclear reactors can go wrong in lots of different ways, all of which need to be kept in mind (which is expensive). The economics of nuclear reactors are still dominated by the costs of getting rid of the radioactive waste they produce, and we still haven't got satisfactory long term solution for that, so none of them can be described as economically justified becausewe havent got a handle on the long terms costs.

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.

Yes, see the above. The crazies blocked Yucca Mountain, the govt let them,
and as a result instead of having waste in one secure location, it's
sitting all over the country.

It's not a good solution, but people have been looking for acceptable solutions for fifty years now, and one has to entertain the hypothesis that we aren't going to find one.

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.

I don't disagree that there are risks. I just find it interesting that almost
all the same folks that tell us the world is going to be screwed unless we
dramatically reduce CO2, won't use one of the fast, readily available ways
to do it. Seems the risk from a nuclear power disaster would pale to the
end of the world in ten years, as AOC put it.

Except that wasn't what AOC said - which would have been obvious to anybody with the social intelligence of a sea cucumber, as AOC pointed out later.

Trader4 doesn't have much intelligence at all, so he missed it.

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.

What makes you think that?

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

Trumps border wall won't work and is an economic nonsense, but it plays well to the deplorables.

Know what exactly? That companies promise construction dates?

They know the history, the issues, the economics of nuclear power,
the current costs, the future projections,
they are in the business and they are willing to build them.

If encouraged by a politician who wants to be seen as sponsoring a high-tech solution to some problem or other.

> I'd say that counts a lot more than internet pontificating.

Most of it is internet pontification.

Which of course is why Bill won't admit to the fact that 50 are being
built.

Trader4 would love for the question to be about the number of nuclear reactors that might be under construction. The real question is whether they'll do anything useful if they ever end up being built.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 16/08/2019 4:35 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:

Unbelievable 75GW peak demand due to heat wave, almost nothing in reserve.

And this is just the warm-up, it's going to get much worse.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-12/searing-texas-heat-pushes-power-prices-to-near-record-levels

The limited reserve is an example of where the free market fails to
provide what is required. There is no commercial incentive to build
generating capacity that would only be required during extreme weather
events if other capacity becomes unavailable. This is an area where
governments have to intervene, and pay for capacity to exist which is
only brought online to meet any shortfall while the price is at the
market price cap (I'm assuming there is one in this instance, there
usually is).

The alternative is that those people who can afford to provide their own
backup, and those that can't just suffer during outages, where "suffer"
can mean "die" during heatwaves.

Sylvia.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 9:31:07 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 12:39:06 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 6:24:35 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
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.

On this, there never was a start to discussing by Bill.

Nor by Trader4. He's an enthusiast for argument by persistent repetition.

He just lied and denied.

Trader4 thinks that his assertions are always true, and any suggestion that they might not be has to be a lie.

I presented the point that contrary to the claims made, there
are a lot of nuclear power plants being built around the world, 50.

He presented the claim, He never bothered to post a link to any web-site that might support this assertion, and whenever anybody else comes up with such a link that isn't wildly discordant with that claim, he imagines that that this validates his specific claim.

He just proceeded to lie and deny. It's his method.

It the appropriate response to argument by repeated unsubstantiated assertion.

More deny, deny, deny. Google still broken? The claim was made that there
were no nuclear power plants, or very few being built today. I posted that
there in fact are 50 under construction, another 50 being planned. That
info is readily available. DL found it. Rick found it. Another poster
found it. I found it. I was correct, point proven. You just want to
keep lying and denying, it's what stupid trolls do.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 9:00:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 12:18:04 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Dan
Aug 21

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 11:25:26 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 9:00:57 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 12:18:04 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Some people's responses to my posts are a waste of time. If Dan realises that his responses aren't being taken seriously - which they aren't because he couldn't argue his way out of paper bag - he should stop posting them. Trader4 is even more inept.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 11:23:35 PM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Thursday, August 22, 2019 at 9:31:07 PM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 12:39:06 AM UTC+10, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 21, 2019 at 6:24:35 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
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:

<snip>

It the appropriate response to argument by repeated unsubstantiated assertion.

More deny, deny, deny.

That's not what I've been saying at all, but Trader4 lacks the skills to make sense of that, so he goes off into one more of his mantras.

It is stupid, but that's Trader4's trademark.

<snipped more of Trader4's useless noise>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:27:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Some people's responses to my posts are a waste of time. If Dan realises that his responses aren't being taken seriously - which they aren't because he couldn't argue his way out of paper bag - he should stop posting them. Trader4 is even more inept.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Your IQ is showing in your response. A high school debate team would tear your post to shreds.

Dan

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 12:09:52 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 16/08/2019 4:35 am, bloggs.fredbloggs.fred@gmail.com wrote:
Unbelievable 75GW peak demand due to heat wave, almost nothing in reserve.

And this is just the warm-up, it's going to get much worse.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-12/searing-texas-heat-pushes-power-prices-to-near-record-levels

The limited reserve is an example of where the free market fails to
provide what is required. There is no commercial incentive to build
generating capacity that would only be required during extreme weather
events if other capacity becomes unavailable.

Actually, the power auction system - without a price cap - provides that incentive.

Then the market can bid the price up far enough to make a fast-start source of expensive power commercially attractive even if it only get turned on a couple of time per year

This is an area where
governments have to intervene, and pay for capacity to exist which is
only brought online to meet any shortfall while the price is at the
market price cap (I'm assuming there is one in this instance, there
usually is).

The alternative is that those people who can afford to provide their own
backup, and those that can't just suffer during outages, where "suffer"
can mean "die" during heatwaves.

If electric cars get to be popular, the fact that private cars spend most of their time (95%) parked has suggested the batteries in all those parked electric cars could serve as grid backup.

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

advanced the idea in 2008, and it wasn't new then. The US figures are that all cars became electric, charging the electric cars would require boosting the network output by 30%, and the parked cars would have a peak output capacity about three times larger than the total grid output.

The current alternative is what happened in South Australia, where the government persuaded one of the utility companies - the French company Neoen -to buy the famous Tesla battery for $91 million. Neoen houses the battery at its wind farm 220km north of Adelaide.

https://www.businessinsider.com.au/tesla-battery-south-australia-cost-state-savings-2018-10

They make a lot of money out of providing short term current corrections to the grid, and seem to have kept the supply going on at least one occasion when lightning strikes took out the interstate interconnects and created blackouts in other states.

In the longer term Snowy 2 is going to able to store a lot more energy - 350 GW.hours as opposed to 129 MW.hours. It isn't going to offer anything like speed for short term current corrections, so the network is going to need both battery and pumped storage.

Imagining that network won't start including power storage is pretty silly..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 11:05:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.


--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Dan

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 11:24:10 AM UTC-4, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 11:05:14 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.


Dan

+1

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Saturday, August 24, 2019 at 12:44:13 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 10:27:09 AM UTC-4, Bill Sloman wrote:

But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Some people's responses to my posts are a waste of time. If Dan realises that his responses aren't being taken seriously - which they aren't because he couldn't argue his way out of paper bag - he should stop posting them. Trader4 is even more inept.

Your IQ is showing in your response. A high school debate team would tear your post to shreds.

But you can't. Pity about that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 2:34:50 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System

No worries, it's just those peaceful Russians. You know, the ones that
stole Crimea and have troops in half of the rest of Ukraine. If this
turns into a new arms race, there will be question who started it.

 

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 3:03:13 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 2:34:50 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System


No worries, it's just those peaceful Russians. You know, the ones that
stole Crimea and have troops in half of the rest of Ukraine. If this
turns into a new arms race, there will be question who started it.

Russians didn't steal Crimea, they voted to rejoin the Russian Federation. Ethnic Russian outnumber Ukrainians living there by 2:1. The place is basically Russian. There's still a bunch of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine. Almost all the major cities, which Russia built, are pushing 50% ethnic Russian. Ukraine has doctored census statistics on that figure so be careful what you read about that. Then the Ukraine story presented to the American public is a complete fraud: Ukraine is definitely no friend of the U.S. Obama's foreign policy was a joke.

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 3:56:01 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:

On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 3:03:13 PM UTC-4, Whoey Louie wrote:
On Friday, August 23, 2019 at 2:34:50 PM UTC-4, bloggs.fre...@gmail.com wrote:
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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

They've put this one into production recently. It's high altitude and hits 27x speed of sound. It's launched from an in-orbit FOBS ICBM, absolutely impossible to intercept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_Orbital_Bombardment_System


No worries, it's just those peaceful Russians. You know, the ones that
stole Crimea and have troops in half of the rest of Ukraine. If this
turns into a new arms race, there will be question who started it.

Russians didn't steal Crimea, they voted to rejoin the Russian Federation..

Yeah, they voted. After RUSSIA INVADED, took over the place, locked up
all the politicians and opponents who wanted to remain part of Ukraine,
with Russian troops, Russian tanks in the streets, they voted.

ROFL

And even if it would have been a fair and open election, it was iligitimate
anyway. Crimea as part of Ukraine, can't just vote and leave. It would
be like the state of Alaska voting to join Russia.


> Ethnic Russian outnumber Ukrainians living there by 2:1. The place is basically Russian. There's still a bunch of ethnic Russians living in Ukraine.. Almost all the major cities, which Russia built, are pushing 50% ethnic Russian. Ukraine has doctored census statistics on that figure so be careful what you read about that. Then the Ukraine story presented to the American public is a complete fraud: Ukraine is definitely no friend of the >U.S. Obama's foreign policy was a joke.

Whatever they are, Russia had as much claim to Ukraine as Hitler did
to the Sudetenland. Russia is a very, very bad actor with a history
of just taking things, like Easter Europe after WWII. Wise up.