The Ukraine War Will Go On Forever...

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 5:22:17 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

Germany needs to revive its coal and nuke power plants, or freeze and
de-industrialize.

It does. And they need to build some more nuclear plants so coal can be
phased out.

There\'s still lots of fuel under the North Sea. More exploring seems
to find more stuff.


Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
engine I hope to build in my backyard won\'t come for free .



The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it\'s a problem
that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)

Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
while we also work on short term solutions.

Wow! If we have short term solutions, we don\'t need long term solutions. The short term solutions don\'t stop being solutions at any time.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:06:56 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:

On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

Germany needs to revive its coal and nuke power plants, or freeze and
de-industrialize.

It does. And they need to build some more nuclear plants so coal can be
phased out.

There\'s still lots of fuel under the North Sea. More exploring seems
to find more stuff.


Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
engine I hope to build in my backyard won\'t come for free .




The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it\'s a problem
that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)

Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
while we also work on short term solutions.
It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to overregulations,
like Jeroen suggested. Then the word \"nuclear\" still spells suicide
for many if not all politicians - which is the biggest problem, after
decades of training the public to perceive the word like this now
is pay time.
But we have no other sane option, we have to start building now indeed
and cover by short term solutions.

So, which regulations need to be eliminated?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Doe]

Cursitor Doom wrote:

John Doe wrote:

Actually it\'s to do with AGGRESSIVE NATO expansion to Russia\'s border
countries, since the end of the Cold War when Russia gave up those
countries.

That\'s the core issue that never seems to get a mention on CNN or any
other Western news channel for that matter. One might have thought an
operation to purge neo-Nazis from the extreme East of Ukraine would have
enjoyed popular support from the Left-of-Center crowd here, but for some
inexplicable reason, all they do is complain about it!

Here and on YouTube, too. Google recently started radically censoring YouTube
comment section replies (via zealous shadow banning). Most of the original
posts are allowed through.

Fox News and Newsmax viewers in the comment sections are ripping the skin off
of channel uploads by neocon warmongers. Different story on globalist CNN and
(especially) MSNBC. Weird.

 

[wmartin]

On 4/19/22 14:50, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:20:42 -0700, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:

On 4/19/22 10:47, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

The Ukraine war is a spiritual war. Spiritual wars are the most dangerous.
It will go on forever.

Nope. Methinks it\'s an economic war. Russia just finished building
an $11 billion offshore natural gas pipeline to Germany primarily to
bypass transit charges for the existing pipelines crossing Ukraine.

\"The Engineering Behind Russia\'s Deadlocked Pipeline: Nord Stream 2\"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzibtVSamrY

As the process of certifying the pipeline blundered forward, the
stumbling block seemed to be getting approval by various countries
which stood to lose transit revenue for existing pipelines:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream#Regulatory_clearance

\"Russia-Ukraine gas disputes\"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes

It seems to be an amazing coincidence that Russia would invade Ukraine
just after certification negotiations were going too slow. Just
connect the (pipeline) dots and follow the money:
https://mondediplo.com/IMG/jpg/lmd_0521_13_gazoducs_rgb.jpg
Maps with much more detail:
http://www.entsog.eu/maps#transmission-capacity-map-2021

\"When somebody says it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.\"
H. L. Mencken

Isn\'t there supposed to be a huge natural gas reservoir under Eastern
Ukraine? Another amazing coincidence!

I couldn\'t find anything that suggests such reserves. Most recent
natural gas discoveries require fracking to extract. If someone found
a \"gas reservoir\" it was likely a deplete oil field, depleted aquifer,
or salt dome, where someone put the gas there for storage:
https://www.energyinfrastructure.org/energy-101/natural-gas-storage

More interesting is that Ukraine was formerly a customer of Russian
natural gas but then switched its power plants to coal gasification
from China. This may explain part of why China refuses to take sides:
https://www.emersonautomationexperts.com/2012/industry/chinese-gasification-expertise-on-its-way-to-the-ukraine/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_in_Ukraine
\"Ukraine stopped buying gas from Russia in November 2015 as a result
to minimize the gas dependence after the outbreak of the Ukraine
crisis. In earlier disputes Russia has stopped gas delivery in 2006
and 2008. In 2009 80% of the European Union gas from Russia was
delivered via Ukraine as transit country.\"

Jeff, thanks for those links. It\'s been some time since I saw the
mention of natural gas in Eastern Ukrain, but it was probably this:
Yuzivska gas field, which is indeed shale geology. Still looks like a
lot of resources at stake...

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Our back yard is a jungle already. Snakes, skunks, raccoons, possum,
coyotes, squirrels, scrub jays, hummers, junkoes (sp?), feral cats,
wild parrots, giant ravens.

A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.

Is it legal to own an air rifle?

--
Defund the Thought Police

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
engine I hope to build in my backyard won\'t come for free .

Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
don\'t keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
put into storage. During those times security can be increased.

--
Defund the Thought Police

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:09:26 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/02/opinion/battle-is-being-waged-future-world/

\"Kennan, Kissinger warned of the ills of NATO’s expanding eastward\" ...
But don\'t take VIP diplomats\' words for it,
this blowhard neocon warmonger knows better...

whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:02:57 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
Actually it\'s to do with AGGRESSIVE NATO expansion to Russia\'s border
countries, since the end of the Cold War when Russia gave up those countries.

Lie #1: it\'s not about NATO, which is a defense agreement that, if anything,
is getting stronger because of this conflict. The \'solution\' wasn\'t aimed at NATO.

Yeah, and what we all know, is that Ukraine didn\'t join NATO, complied with the Kissinger
suggested path, and that led to the current war. Kissinger\'s dead, he might
have another opinion this week...

Blowhard? Neocon? Warmonger? Really, do any of those tags
apply? John Doe is such a source of nonsense... or maybe just a conduit,
no sign of original thought seen.

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:45:01 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

On 20/04/2022 00:06, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

Germany needs to revive its coal and nuke power plants, or freeze and
de-industrialize.

It does. And they need to build some more nuclear plants so coal can be
phased out.

There\'s still lots of fuel under the North Sea. More exploring seems
to find more stuff.


Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
engine I hope to build in my backyard won\'t come for free .




The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it\'s a problem
that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)

Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
while we also work on short term solutions.

It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to overregulations,
like Jeroen suggested. Then the word \"nuclear\" still spells suicide
for many if not all politicians - which is the biggest problem, after
decades of training the public to perceive the word like this now
is pay time.
Certainly fear of radiation is regularly overdone, and that leads to
over-regulation and cowardice from the people making decisions. You do
have to be careful with nuclear power, but you don\'t have to be silly
about it. At the time of Fukushima, there was talk of evacuating Tokyo
- the levels they were concerned about were lower than the background
radiation where I live.

Yes, whenever someone wants to show extreme reactions, all they need to do is mention \"talk of\" something. Yeah, talk is cheap. It has no real bearing on anything useful. Or so the \"talk\" goes.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Ricky]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
engine I hope to build in my backyard won\'t come for free .
Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
don\'t keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
put into storage. During those times security can be increased.

What\'s the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using the electricity, right? Otherwise why not just borrow money for everything we do and pay it back on a 1,000 year loan?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[bitrex]

On 4/19/2022 6:46 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:02:50 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
always.look@message.header> wrote:

Actually it\'s to do with AGGRESSIVE NATO expansion to Russia\'s border
countries, since the end of the Cold War when Russia gave up those countries.

That\'s the core issue that never seems to get a mention on CNN or any
other Western news channel for that matter.
One might have thought an operation to purge neo-Nazis from the
extreme East of Ukraine would have enjoyed popular support from the
Left-of-Center crowd here, but for some inexplicable reason, all they
do is complain about it!

\"Purge\" neo-Nazis? Every Eastern European country (and every European
country, and the United States, and...) has them, what would be the
point, they just leave and come back later.

Might as well talk about purging dingle berries from every stray cat\'s
ass in Cambridge MA it\'s a nonsensical pretext.

An issue there tends to be a number of broke-brain Democrats in the US
about is funding weapons and supply weapons transfer to Ukraine, I don\'t
support the US shipping any weapons to ANYONE! ever! and I don\'t
associate with types who think it\'s a good idea. It\'s almost never been
a good idea for pushing 80 years.

 

[bitrex]

On 4/19/2022 10:41 PM, bitrex wrote:

On 4/19/2022 6:46 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:02:50 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
always.look@message.header> wrote:

Actually it\'s to do with AGGRESSIVE NATO expansion to Russia\'s border
countries, since the end of the Cold War when Russia gave up those
countries.

That\'s the core issue that never seems to get a mention on CNN or any
other Western news channel for that matter.
One might have thought an operation to purge neo-Nazis from the
extreme East of Ukraine would have enjoyed popular support from the
Left-of-Center crowd here, but for some inexplicable reason, all they
do is complain about it!

\"Purge\" neo-Nazis? Every Eastern European country (and every European
country, and the United States, and...) has them, what would be the
point, they just leave and come back later.

Might as well talk about purging dingle berries from every stray cat\'s
ass in Cambridge MA it\'s a nonsensical pretext.

An issue there tends to be a number of broke-brain Democrats in the US
about is funding weapons and supply weapons transfer to Ukraine, I don\'t
support the US shipping any weapons to ANYONE! ever! and I don\'t
associate with types who think it\'s a good idea. It\'s almost never been
a good idea for pushing 80 years.

Oh and that type of shithead behavior, caving to hawkish Democrats, will
likely sink the Biden administration\'s chances of a second term for
good, at best. I\'d say that was a good thing if the chances it will be
replaced with something way worse didn\'t approach 100%.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:41:28 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com
wrote:
On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com
wrote:

The Ukraine war is a spiritual war. Spiritual wars are the most dangerous.
It will go on forever.

The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
doesn\'t matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed.

These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.
They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
continue fighting.

Patriarch Kirill, A Former KGB Spy and Spiritual Guru is the driving force
behind Putin’s Ukraine War:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5_GvssAw0

Pride, patriotism and how Putin helped redefine what it means to be a \'true
Russian\'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bItwqPQVnBs

This is a great fork in history. Russia could crush Ukraine, hunker
down, absorb more small countries, isolate itself from the rest of
civilization, brain drain all its talent and morality, and stay poor
and barbaric for another 50 years.

Or they could disappear Putin and become european.




They have too many nukes for the world to allow them to stay a
North Korea 2.0 for such a long time (they already are that, only
the fat Kim unlike Putin has the brains not to put his country
at war with the rest of the world).
The problem is \"allow\".

NATO doesn\'t look like it will engage in a surface war.
This has to be resolved one way or another, whatever the cost.
The only reasonable thing for the west to do is make it clear that
there will be absolute economic isolation and asset seizure for as
long as russia occupies ukraine. Decades if necessary.

Europeans need to start fracking.

What a silly idea. Europeans need to start building those solar farms on the Sahara. They delver electricity at a lower price per kilowatt hour than you can get by burning fossil carbon.

And the nice simple chemicals that you can get by extracting fossil carbon are better used as chemical feed-stocks rather than burnt as fuel. Only a barbarian would do that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:26:14 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:

On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:

<snip>

NATO doesn\'t look like it will engage in a surface war.

No, the chance it will go all out nuclear is almost a certainty at the moment.

Only if Putin is flat-out insane, and his staff are too brainwashed to do anything about it. Even in Russia this is unlikely.

> >> This has to be resolved one way or another, whatever the cost.

Why?

The only reasonable thing for the west to do is make it clear that
there will be absolute economic isolation and asset seizure for as
long as russia occupies ukraine. Decades if necessary.

Europeans need to start fracking.

Europeans need to do whatever it takes to stop buying anything from Russia. Faster - even of this means blackouts and painful economical loss.

More windmills and solar farms would mean less economic loss than fracking, or the other idiot right-wing solution, more nuclear reactors which also take a lot longer to get built.

I am thinking of buying a generator here... just 2-3 kW, life without electricity for me would be 100% pointless, never mind the difficult side of it.

May be I have to get something I can adapt to a steam engine which I can run on wood I can gather,

It worked for our fore-fathers. The industrial revolution was largely steam powered. if you had a river or decent sized creek nearby you could go for a micro-hydroelectric plant. There\'s a market for them in the third world.

> I don\'t know how to get a plutonium cell to boil the water .

Ask any nuclear terrorist. They won\'t be able to do it either, mainly because anti-terrorist organisations have worked very hard to make it difficult for them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:39:37 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:26:05 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Germany needs to revive its coal and nuke power plants, or freeze and de-industrialize.

John Larkin not only reads and believes climate change denial propaganda, but he has also internalised the false premises it need s to make it look plausible.

The quickest and cheapest way for Germany to get more electric power is for them to build more solar farms and more wind-turbines. Nuclear plants make expensive electricity and it take a long time to build a new one. Geman hard coal has long since been mined out and brown coal isn\'t a cheap or attractive fuel.

It\'s high time they had another look at their project to build some huge solar farms in the Sahara and ship a lot of the power generated north on a long high voltage cable running under the Mediterranean and up through Italy. Cheap electric power would buy a lot of political goodwill around the Sahara.

> There\'s still lots of fuel under the North Sea. More exploring seems to find more stuff.

The North Sea floor has already been checked out in some detail.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:45 AM UTC+10, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:

tirsdag den 19. april 2022 kl. 21.04.07 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:29:33 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:26:05 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:

Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.

Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
engine I hope to build in my backyard won\'t come for free .

The actual main brake is that it is expensive, and nuclear plants work best when delivering a fixed output. The French may need to back them up with pumped storage and grid-scale batteries.

Don\'t turn to the French for nuclear. They can\'t seem to build a nuke for less than $20 billion these days and it will be a decade late in commissioning. Their nuclear projects are mostly disasters.

yeh, only 56 reactors and producing +70% of the country\'s electricity ...

And if they produced a higher proportion, they\'d need to spend a lot on pumped storage and grid-scale batteries. Nuclear plants work best when delivering a fixed output.

Last year some twenty of those reactors were out of action while they were being modified to correct a fault in the original design. There are probably others just waiting to show up.

Solar farms do seem to be less problematic (and cheaper).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:14:34 -0700, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:

On 4/19/22 08:27, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:54:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:20:32 -0700) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
71ht5h1pk8t8eve6cj4jmir45n50ebr6pg@4ax.com>:

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

The Ukraine war is a spiritual war. Spiritual wars are the most dangerous.
It will go on forever.

The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
doesn\'t matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed.

These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.
They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
continue fighting.

Patriarch Kirill, A Former KGB Spy and Spiritual Guru is the driving force
behind Putin’s Ukraine War:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5_GvssAw0

Pride, patriotism and how Putin helped redefine what it means to be a \'true
Russian\'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bItwqPQVnBs

This is a great fork in history. Russia could crush Ukraine, hunker
down, absorb more small countries, isolate itself from the rest of
civilization, brain drain all its talent and morality, and stay poor
and barbaric for another 50 years.

Or they could disappear Putin and become european.

Or they could nuke US and divide it up between China for the east part and Russia for the west part
FYI.

That would aguably be historic too.


All that is required to trigger that is when byethen mistakes his red button for his toasters\'s.
Or maybe they will make the whole US an animal reserve.
Does not take much work...

Our back yard is a jungle already. Snakes, skunks, raccoons, possum,
coyotes, squirrels, scrub jays, hummers, junkoes (sp?), feral cats,
wild parrots, giant ravens.

A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.




A wild turkey? Was it\'s name Gavin something-or-other?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v5z9u5lcwle2ltt/Illegal_Alien_Glen_Park.jpg?raw=1

We were walking on Bernal Heights and saw two signs on trees.

Coyote Warning...

and

Missing Cat...




--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[whit3rd]

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
don\'t keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
put into storage. During those times security can be increased.

What\'s the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using the electricity, right?

Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.
If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it\'d lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.

You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against future intrusions.
That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:

On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

<snip>

Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
engine I hope to build in my backyard won\'t come for free .

The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it\'s a problem
that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)

Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
while we also work on short term solutions.

Only if you haven\'t bothered to think how much you a re going to have to charge for each kilowatt hour of energy you sell to your customers to let you make a profit.

It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to over-regulation,
like Jeroen suggested.

Then again some twenty of France\'s 56 nuclear reactors were all shut down for a while recently while mistakes in the original build were corrected, Nuclear plants have got more expensive recently because we\'ve learned more about how they can go wrong. Solving problems that you can anticipate is cheaper that solving them after they\'ve made themselves obvious, but it isn\'t free,

>Then the word \"nuclear\" still spells suicide for many if not all politicians - which is the biggest problem, after decades of training the public to perceive the word like this now is pay time.

It\'s taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing with long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated. They haven\'t been by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up a repository for long term storage - several hundreds of thousands of years - and they may never succeed. Not in my backyard is a potet slogan.

> But we have no other sane option, we have to start building now indeed and cover by short term solutions.

The Australian power generation industry doesn\'t see it that way. They are building new solar farms and new wind turbines at a great rate, because they produce electricity more cheaply than any other source and quite a bit more cheaply than nuclear plants. They are starting to invest grid-scale batteries, and the Australian Federal Government is in the process of extending our biggest hydroelectric scheme to offer a lot of pumped storage.

https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/

The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:38:59 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-says-no-red-line-indias-oil-imports-russia-2022-03-31/

\"India and China count Russia as a friendly nation and neither has
condemned Russia\'s attack on Ukraine. While India has abstained from
voting on U.N. resolutions on the war, China has in some cases sided with
Moscow.\"

https://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-emirati-leaders-decline-calls-with-biden-during-ukraine-crisis-11646779430

\"Saudi, Emirati Leaders Decline Calls With Biden During Ukraine Crisis\"

It\'s the hard West, neocons and liberals, against the rest of the world,
fighting for their beloved Ukraine.

Not exactly. Any country bordering on Russia has to wonder what the Russians might do after they\'d swallowed up as much of the Ukraine as they felt like digesting.

>Before Russia invaded, most Americans had no idea what Ukraine was, except being \"10% for the big guy\" and maybe an old Beatles\' song.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17

No US citizens got killed when MH17 got shot down over the Ukraine in 2014. Russian has been invading bits of the Ukraine for quite a while now, and eleven countries suffered collateral damage in that incident. Americans don\'t pay much attention to the rest of the world. It isn\'t a virtue.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:45:39 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

Cursitor Doom wrote:
John Doe wrote:

Actually it\'s to do with AGGRESSIVE NATO expansion to Russia\'s border
countries, since the end of the Cold War when Russia gave up those
countries.

That\'s the core issue that never seems to get a mention on CNN or any
other Western news channel for that matter. One might have thought an
operation to purge neo-Nazis from the extreme East of Ukraine would have
enjoyed popular support from the Left-of-Center crowd here, but for some
inexplicable reason, all they do is complain about it!
Here and on YouTube, too. Google recently started radically censoring YouTube
comment section replies (via zealous shadow banning). Most of the original
posts are allowed through.

Fox News and Newsmax viewers in the comment sections are ripping the skin off
of channel uploads by neocon warmongers. Different story on globalist CNN and
(especially) MSNBC. Weird.

Fox News is designed to appeal to right-wing half-wits like you. Actual news services attract a slightly saner audience.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney