Clean coal my arse
ta
Giga
"ta" <tap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fe7ba9f-10c2-4bac...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0ObQKwxpHc&feature=related
Interesting, didn't reealise it was such a mess in the US. There are clearly
enviromental issues here, that need to be dealt with. However as regards
Global Warming carbon capture is just going to be necessary to have much
chance of reaching emmssions targets.
3877
The obvious alternative is to replace the use of coal fired power generation with nukes.
That clearly works, France generates 90% of its power using nukes.
Giga
"3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7oq3jhF...@mid.individual.net...
This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10 years, maybe 15-20 to
make significant dent. It takes time to build those things and only so many
can be built at one time, due to lack of trained personnell.
turtoni
ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
> "3877" <3...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7oq3jhF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Giga" <"Giga wrote:
> >>news:4fe7ba9f-10c2-4bac...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0ObQKwxpHc&feature=related
>
> >> Interesting, didn't reealise it was such a mess in the US. There are
> >> clearly enviromental issues here, that need to be dealt with. However
> >> as regards Global Warming carbon capture is just going to be
> >> necessary to have much chance of reaching emmssions targets.
>
> > The obvious alternative is to replace the use of coal fired power
> > generation with nukes.
>
> > That clearly works, France generates 90% of its power using nukes.
>
> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10 years, maybe 15-20 to
> make significant dent. It takes time to build those things and only so many
> can be built at one time, due to lack of trained personnell.
Remember when the environmentalists were all up in arms about nuclear
power? That's why the USA/UK doesn't have that many nuclear power
stations. Good job environmentalists!
3877
> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:7oq3jhF...@mid.individual.net...
>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>> "ta" <tap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4fe7ba9f-10c2-4bac...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0ObQKwxpHc&feature=related
>>>
>>> Interesting, didn't reealise it was such a mess in the US. There are
>>> clearly enviromental issues here, that need to be dealt with.
>>> However as regards Global Warming carbon capture is just going to be
>>> necessary to have much chance of reaching emmssions targets.
>>
>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of coal fired power
>> generation with nukes.
>>
>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its power using nukes.
>>
>
> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10 years,
Yes it is if the US wants to go that route.
> maybe 15-20 to make significant dent.
Carbon capture would take even longer.
> It takes time to build those things
No it does not. It didnt not take the french anything like that long to build theirs.
China either.
> and only so many can be built at one time, due to lack of trained personnell.
You do not need trained personnel to repeat the building of the same design iin more than one place.
tg
> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
> > "3877" <3...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:7oq3jhF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
> >>>news:4fe7ba9f-10c2-4bac...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0ObQKwxpHc&feature=related
>
> >>> Interesting, didn't reealise it was such a mess in the US. There are
> >>> clearly enviromental issues here, that need to be dealt with.
> >>> However as regards Global Warming carbon capture is just going to be
> >>> necessary to have much chance of reaching emmssions targets.
>
> >> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of coal fired power
> >> generation with nukes.
>
> >> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its power using nukes.
>
> > This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10 years,
>
> Yes it is if the US wants to go that route.
>
> > maybe 15-20 to make significant dent.
>
> Carbon capture would take even longer.
>
> > It takes time to build those things
>
> No it does not. It didnt not take the french anything like that long to build theirs.
>
> China either.
>
> > and only so many can be built at one time, due to lack of trained personnell.
>
> You do not need trained personnel to repeat the building of the same design iin more than one place.
But that would be socialism, so we can't do it here.
-tg
Fred Weiss
> On Dec 15, 3:49 pm, "Giga" <"Giga" <just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)
> > This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10 years, maybe 15-20 to
> > make significant dent. It takes time to build those things and only so many
> > can be built at one time, due to lack of trained personnell.
>
> Remember when the environmentalists were all up in arms about nuclear
> power? That's why the USA/UK doesn't have that many nuclear power
> stations. Good job environmentalists!
Indeed.
And don't be fooled by a handful of enviroHysterics now looking
favorably upon nuclear power. As soon as a large scale building
program got underway they would be out in force to oppose it.
Fred Weiss
3877
Like hell it would.
> so we can't do it here.
Pity about medicare, social security, public education, the military, etc etc etc.
James A. Donald
> Interesting, didn't reealise it was such a mess in the
> US. There are clearly enviromental issues here, that
> need to be dealt with. However as regards Global
> Warming carbon capture is just going to be necessary
> to have much chance of reaching emmssions targets.
Coal with CO2 capture is an unproven technology that may
not necessarily be feasible. If it turns out to be
feasible, they will find some environmentalist rationale
for forbidding it.
All methods of reaching emission targets that do not
require the destruction of western civilization have
been rejected.
Nuclear power would allow us to easily reach emission
targets, but to make sure that does not happen, the
government requires all new nuclear power stations to
dispose of waste in a government approved facility, and
has not approved any facilities.
Another solution would be a nation wide high voltage DC
power grid, and tower of power solar thermal plants with
molten salt storage in the high southern deserts. But
they have pulled out of their ass some crazy
environmentalist rationale for stopping tower of power
plants also.
Tower of power with molten salt storage is the only
solar power that can deliver power when you need it,
instead of when the sun is shining. All forms of
alternative energy that are being developed at present
are just fakes, to deceive people that the greenies do
not intend the destruction of civilization and a radical
reduction of the human population to "sustainable"
levels. Any form of alternative energy that actually
works (such as tower of power) comes under immediate
attack.
James A. Donald
> > The obvious alternative is to replace the use of
> > coal fired power generation with nukes.
> >
> > That clearly works, France generates 90% of its
> > power using nukes.
> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10
> years
The obstacles are political, not engineering, and who
says we have to convert in five or ten years?
There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
emission targets in five or ten years.
John Stafford
Good observation. The future as Exxon sees it is all about natural gas.
It is likely to happen. Exxon's massive take-over of natural gas is
intended to perpetuate the idea of sucking the earth - a small step ,
from petrol.
And it is pathetic. Regardless, just due to Exxon's huge influence the
electric car will be put off for another five years.
ta
> In article <8eigi5hv2rmrf1o3uc7u2hkpc6n6ro7...@4ax.com>,
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>
> > "Giga" <"Giga"
> > > > The obvious alternative is to replace the use of
> > > > coal fired power generation with nukes.
>
> > > > That clearly works, France generates 90% of its
> > > > power using nukes.
>
> > > This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10
> > > years
>
> > The obstacles are political, not engineering, and who
> > says we have to convert in five or ten years?
>
> > There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
> > emission targets in five or ten years.
>
> Good observation. The future as Exxon sees it is all about natural gas.
> It is likely to happen. Exxon's massive take-over of natural gas is
> intended to perpetuate the idea of sucking the earth - a small step ,
> from petrol.
Natgas, when compared with coal, is by far the lesser of two evils.
> And it is pathetic. Regardless, just due to Exxon's huge influence the
> electric car will be put off for another five years.
That wouldn't be the case if a carbon tax as described in the article
tg posted was implemented, though I'm not optimistic that will happen
anytime soon. Big business runs this government. And this
administration is still pushing the "clean coal" boondoggle.
Giga
"turtoni" <tur...@fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:40106dc7-c3f3-4811...@o19g2000vbj.googlegroups.com...
=Some of them still are! Me personally I think efficiency and renewable
(plus carbon capture coal) will do what needed.
Giga
> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:7oq3jhF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>>> "ta" <tap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4fe7ba9f-10c2-4bac...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0ObQKwxpHc&feature=related
>>>>
>>>> Interesting, didn't reealise it was such a mess in the US. There are
>>>> clearly enviromental issues here, that need to be dealt with.
>>>> However as regards Global Warming carbon capture is just going to be
>>>> necessary to have much chance of reaching emmssions targets.
>>>
>>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of coal fired power
>>> generation with nukes.
>>>
>>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its power using nukes.
>>>
>>
>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10 years,
>
> Yes it is if the US wants to go that route.
It takes a minimum of 10 years to build those things, what are you thinking?
>
>> maybe 15-20 to make significant dent.
>
> Carbon capture would take even longer.
Already happening;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Example_CCS_projects
>
>> It takes time to build those things
>
> No it does not.
Cool instant powerplants, are you high or something?
It didnt not take the french anything like that long to build theirs.
>
They have been at it for 50+ years! And got 58 reactors. It is estimated it
will take 40 years to replace those!
> China either.
>
>> and only so many can be built at one time, due to lack of trained
>> personnell.
>
> You do not need trained personnel to repeat the building of the same
> design iin more than one place.
Really! So now you are an expert on nuclear power plant construction. Its
laughable really.
>
Giga
"James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
news:8eigi5hv2rmrf1o3u...@4ax.com...
> "Giga" <"Giga"
>> > The obvious alternative is to replace the use of
>> > coal fired power generation with nukes.
>> >
>> > That clearly works, France generates 90% of its
>> > power using nukes.
>
>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10
>> years
>
> The obstacles are political, not engineering, and who
> says we have to convert in five or ten years?
Certainly not engineering, we know how to build them, but I think there is
more to it than most people realise. They take 10-15 years to build.
>
> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
> emission targets in five or ten years.
>
Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
3877
> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:7oqcm0F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:7oq3jhF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>>>> "ta" <tap...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:4fe7ba9f-10c2-4bac...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0ObQKwxpHc&feature=related
>>>>>
>>>>> Interesting, didn't reealise it was such a mess in the US. There
>>>>> are clearly enviromental issues here, that need to be dealt with.
>>>>> However as regards Global Warming carbon capture is just going to
>>>>> be necessary to have much chance of reaching emmssions targets.
>>>>
>>>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of coal fired power
>>>> generation with nukes.
>>>>
>>>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its power using nukes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10 years,
>>
>> Yes it is if the US wants to go that route.
> It takes a minimum of 10 years to build those things,
No it does not. Plenty have been built quicker than that.
And it will take even longer to do viable carbon capture anyway.
what are you
> thinking?
>>
>>> maybe 15-20 to make significant dent.
>>
>> Carbon capture would take even longer.
> Already happening;
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Example_CCS_projects
Not commercially viably.
>>
>>> It takes time to build those things
>>
>> No it does not.
>
> Cool instant powerplants, are you high or something?
>
> It didnt not take the french anything like that long to build theirs.
>>
>
> They have been at it for 50+ years!
So has the west.
And got 58 reactors. It is
> estimated it will take 40 years to replace those!
Only by fools.
>> China either.
>>
>>> and only so many can be built at one time, due to lack of trained
>>> personnell.
>>
>> You do not need trained personnel to repeat the building of the same
>> design iin more than one place.
>
> Really! So now you are an expert on nuclear power plant construction.
Nothing special about nuke power plant construction in that regard.
> Its laughable really.
You certainly are that.
3877
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
> news:8eigi5hv2rmrf1o3u...@4ax.com...
>> "Giga" <"Giga"
>>>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of
>>>> coal fired power generation with nukes.
>>>>
>>>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its
>>>> power using nukes.
>>
>>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10
>>> years
>>
>> The obstacles are political, not engineering, and who
>> says we have to convert in five or ten years?
>
> Certainly not engineering, we know how to build them, but I think
> there is more to it than most people realise. They take 10-15 years
> to build.
Plenty of them have been built quicker than that.
And NOT ONE commercially viable coal fired power station with full carbon capture has EVER been built anyway.
>>
>> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
>> emission targets in five or ten years.
>>
>
> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
Those will not meet those targets.
3877
Nukes will do it much better and are quicker than commercially viable carbon capture and are working right now too.
James A. Donald
> > emission targets in five or ten years.
"Giga"
> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
If efficiency was easy enough we would already be efficient. Due to
the all the previous greenie attacks on western civilization,
electricity costs three to ten times what it should.
>
James A. Donald
> Me personally I think efficiency and renewable (plus
> carbon capture coal) will do what needed.
Renewable cannot do it, because any renewable that could
do it (tower of power with molten salt storage) gets
forbidden.
The objective is not reduce CO2 emissions, but to
destroy western civilization and radically reduce the
Rod Speed
> Giga wrote
>> Me personally I think efficiency and renewable
>> (plus carbon capture coal) will do what needed.
> Renewable cannot do it, because any renewable that could do
> it (tower of power with molten salt storage) gets forbidden.
> The objective is not reduce CO2 emissions, but
> to destroy western civilization and radically reduce
> the human population to "sustainable" levels.
Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
EVERY modern first world country is ALREADY at sustainable population levels if you take out immigration.
Giga
kicks in. 30000 coal plants worldwide, it will take centuries to replace
even half of them with nukes, AFAICS.
Giga
no real reason to beleive in such a plan. If there is then carbon capture
will be the least of our worries.
Giga
Well yeah, you aint going to make much money atm, once trading starts gonna
look a bit different, and as tech improves.
>
>>>
>>>> It takes time to build those things
>>>
>>> No it does not.
>>
>> Cool instant powerplants, are you high or something?
>>
>> It didnt not take the french anything like that long to build theirs.
>>>
>>
>> They have been at it for 50+ years!
>
> So has the west.
btw France is a western country.
>
> And got 58 reactors. It is
>> estimated it will take 40 years to replace those!
>
> Only by fools.
>
>>> China either.
>>>
>>>> and only so many can be built at one time, due to lack of trained
>>>> personnell.
>>>
>>> You do not need trained personnel to repeat the building of the same
>>> design iin more than one place.
>>
>> Really! So now you are an expert on nuclear power plant construction.
>
> Nothing special about nuke power plant construction in that regard.
>
lol
Giga
> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>> news:8eigi5hv2rmrf1o3u...@4ax.com...
>>> "Giga" <"Giga"
>>>>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of
>>>>> coal fired power generation with nukes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its
>>>>> power using nukes.
>>>
>>>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10
>>>> years
>>>
>>> The obstacles are political, not engineering, and who
>>> says we have to convert in five or ten years?
>>
>> Certainly not engineering, we know how to build them, but I think
>> there is more to it than most people realise. They take 10-15 years
>> to build.
>
> Plenty of them have been built quicker than that.
Any references for that assertion?
>
> And NOT ONE commercially viable coal fired power station with full carbon
> capture has EVER been built anyway.
>
>>>
>>> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
>>> emission targets in five or ten years.
>>>
>>
>> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
>
> Those will not meet those targets.
>
I think in the UK in 10 years we need to reduce 20% or so? This seems to me
well within the possible region of effcecies.
3877
Nope, essentially because carbon tading will not kick in.
> 30000 coal plants worldwide, it will take centuries
> to replace even half of them with nukes, AFAICS.
How odd that it did not take centuries to build them in the first place.
It certainly did not take france anything like centuries to replace 90% of theirs with nukes.
Giga
using has already had a big efect. Not buying so many silly products I don't
even need. Walking occasionaly instead of driving. Offsetting, i.e.
efficencies in the 3rd world etc etc.
3877
Lose lots in fact.
once trading starts
> gonna look a bit different,
Nope, because we will never see enough carbon trading to make carbon capture economically viable.
> and as tech improves.
Makes a lot more sense to use nukes where the tech is already well
established and commercially viable even without any carbon trading.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> It takes time to build those things
>>>>
>>>> No it does not.
>>>
>>> Cool instant powerplants, are you high or something?
>>>
>>> It didnt not take the french anything like that long to build
>>> theirs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They have been at it for 50+ years!
>>
>> So has the west.
>
> btw France is a western country.
Duh. I meant that the bulk of the west has, not just france.
>>
>> And got 58 reactors. It is
>>> estimated it will take 40 years to replace those!
>>
>> Only by fools.
>>
>>>> China either.
>>>>
>>>>> and only so many can be built at one time, due to lack of trained
>>>>> personnell.
>>>>
>>>> You do not need trained personnel to repeat the building of the
>>>> same design iin more than one place.
>>>
>>> Really! So now you are an expert on nuclear power plant
>>> construction.
>>
>> Nothing special about nuke power plant construction in that regard.
>>
>
> lol
What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.
3877
> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:7osli0F...@mid.individual.net...
>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8eigi5hv2rmrf1o3u...@4ax.com...
>>>> "Giga" <"Giga"
>>>>>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of
>>>>>> coal fired power generation with nukes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its
>>>>>> power using nukes.
>>>>
>>>>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10
>>>>> years
>>>>
>>>> The obstacles are political, not engineering, and who
>>>> says we have to convert in five or ten years?
>>>
>>> Certainly not engineering, we know how to build them, but I think
>>> there is more to it than most people realise. They take 10-15 years
>>> to build.
>>
>> Plenty of them have been built quicker than that.
>
> Any references for that assertion?
China, Japan and France.
>
>>
>> And NOT ONE commercially viable coal fired power station with full
>> carbon capture has EVER been built anyway.
>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
>>>> emission targets in five or ten years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
>>
>> Those will not meet those targets.
>>
>
> I think in the UK in 10 years we need to reduce 20% or so?
Much more than that is needed to stop the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels.
This seems
> to me well within the possible region of effcecies.
Even those inadequate cuts is not.
Les Cargill
> Big business runs this government.
What other choice do they have? It's either "hands off", or there's
corporations exercising the First Amendment to defend themselves/
enlighten the government. That ship sailed long ago.
I saw very, very high level EEs from power companies in front
of Congress when the rolling blackouts thing hit, on CSPAN. Lemme
tell ya - Congress ain't gonna design network instrumentation.
They were actually discussing *poll intervals* ( I do a lot of
instrumentation stuff outside of electric networks ) and I
just thought how totally hosed Congress would be *without* those guys.
You realize how hard it is to discss coverage without being able to
throw a few differential equations on a whiteboard?
Besides, corporations work pretty hard on ethics these days. You
probably can't just trust 'em, but they're at least trying. It
just creates what I see as a very interesting command/control
design problem, a governance-systems-design thing that we *probably*
get a lot of good out of.
When government isn't directly pushing existential problems
at companies, basic incentives thinking tells us they'll probably
cooperate.
> And this
> administration is still pushing the "clean coal" boondoggle.
>
That boondoggle's probably pretty important. I'd rather
see nukes myself, but coal's *probably* the best we got.
Makes me wish Feynman were still alive. He could be a hell
of a critic at large.
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Not so much, no.
How much of your energy budget is voluntary? Ed Begley
Junior can do what he does because he's got resources;
you and I mostly don't.
And the problem is that cap and trade isn't very
congruent with true Pigovian taxation. That was the
problem with the Kytoto protocol. It's literally
too hard - you have to not-kill off development
at the same time.
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
Nope, nukes are. And that isnt a prediction either, france generates 90% of its electricity that way.
> Makes me wish Feynman were still alive. He could be a hell of a critic at large.
Doesnt mean that he could get congress to do what matters on that.
James A. Donald
> >>> to build.
> >> Plenty of them have been built quicker than that.
> > Any references for that assertion?
> China, Japan and France.
That is not a reference. However Reading news reports of the Chinese
nuclear program, it does seem that it only takes about three years
between breaking the ground and delivering power, but I cannot find a
specific timeline for any specific projects.
China decided on a big expansion of nuclear power in 2006, and right
now today, four years later, they are generating a lot more nuclear
power, indicating four years or less between making a decision, and
power running to the grid.
But though China can physically build plants very quickly in the sense
that it does not take long between the bulldozers and the power
generation, even china finds red tape a problem. An America that
cannot rebuild the two towers, cannot possibly build nuclear power
plants. If something is complicated, government cannot do it. If
something is complicated and highly regulated by government, private
enterprise cannot do it. Even if greenies were not determined to
destroy western civilization, the US can no more build nuclear power
plants than it can put a man on the moon.
James A. Donald
> > The objective is not reduce CO2 emissions, but
> > to destroy western civilization and radically reduce
> > the human population to "sustainable" levels.
"Rod Speed"
> Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
We have some of the emails from the conspiracy.
It is apparent from the tone and language of the emails that IPCCC,
GISS, Hadley, CRU, and several other supposedly independent warming
alarmism organizations are all secretly run by the same small group of
people in a fully coordinated manner, which is to say, are front
groups. People supposedly in one group treat a boss supposedly in
another group as having authority over them.
That is a conspiracy. The very essence of conspiracy is that people
are secretly united, while pretending to be independent and separate.
Les Cargill
So are we the People's Judean Front, or the People's Judean Front?
I never can remember.
(always look on the bright side of life)
--
Les Cargill
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> [Nuclear Power plants] They take 10-15 years to build.
>>>> Plenty of them have been built quicker than that.
>>> Any references for that assertion?
>> China, Japan and France.
> That is not a reference.
Corse it is. Its all anyone with even half a clue needs
to identify those which have been built quicker than that.
> However Reading news reports of the Chinese nuclear
> program, it does seem that it only takes about three years
> between breaking the ground and delivering power, but
> I cannot find a specific timeline for any specific projects.
Your problem. Its clearly much better than 10-15 years.
> China decided on a big expansion of nuclear power in 2006,
> and right now today, four years later, they are generating
> a lot more nuclear power, indicating four years or less
> between making a decision, and power running to the grid.
Its clearly much better than 10-15 years.
> But though China can physically build plants very quickly in the
> sense that it does not take long between the bulldozers and
> the power generation, even china finds red tape a problem.
Irrelevant to the stupid 10-15 years claim being discussed.
> An America that cannot rebuild the two towers,
> cannot possibly build nuclear power plants.
How odd that it has done already.
> If something is complicated, government cannot do it.
How odd that it managed to do WW2 fine.
> If something is complicated and highly regulated
> by government, private enterprise cannot do it.
How odd that it built nukes fine.
> Even if greenies were not determined to destroy western civilization,
They have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
> the US can no more build nuclear power
> plants than it can put a man on the moon.
How odd that it did both.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>> The objective is not reduce CO2 emissions, but
>>> to destroy western civilization and radically reduce
>>> the human population to "sustainable" levels.
>> Just another utterly mindless conspiracy theory.
> We have some of the emails from the conspiracy.
Like hell we do. That was JUST a conspiracy to get money out of govt, a different matter entirely.
> It is apparent from the tone and language of the emails that IPCCC,
> GISS, Hadley, CRU, and several other supposedly independent warming
> alarmism organizations are all secretly run by the same small group of
> people in a fully coordinated manner, which is to say, are front groups.
> People supposedly in one group treat a boss supposedly in
> another group as having authority over them.
> That is a conspiracy.
A completely different conspiracy to your original pig ignorant lie in fact.
> The very essence of conspiracy is that people are secretly
> united, while pretending to be independent and separate.
A completely different conspiracy to your original pig ignorant lie in fact.
Giga
Yeah, 50 years to build 58 or so, 1 a year, this very advanced and rich
western country.
>
Giga
"Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hgc6g6$87v$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
roads, medice, wine bla blah, what did they ever do for us!
Giga
You been looking at tea leaves again?
>> and as tech improves.
>
> Makes a lot more sense to use nukes where the tech is already well
> established and commercially viable even without any carbon trading.
Dream on, 30,000 nuclear power plants in the next 10 years,
haaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaahahahahahahah.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> It takes time to build those things
>>>>>
>>>>> No it does not.
>>>>
>>>> Cool instant powerplants, are you high or something?
>>>>
>>>> It didnt not take the french anything like that long to build
>>>> theirs.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They have been at it for 50+ years!
>>>
>>> So has the west.
>>
>> btw France is a western country.
>
> Duh. I meant that the bulk of the west has, not just france.
>
>>>
>>> And got 58 reactors. It is
>>>> estimated it will take 40 years to replace those!
>>>
>>> Only by fools.
>>>
>>>>> China either.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and only so many can be built at one time, due to lack of trained
>>>>>> personnell.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do not need trained personnel to repeat the building of the
>>>>> same design iin more than one place.
>>>>
>>>> Really! So now you are an expert on nuclear power plant
>>>> construction.
>>>
>>> Nothing special about nuke power plant construction in that regard.
>>>
>>
>> lol
>
> What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.
>
I'm sorry to appear flippant but I'm sure there is a lot more to building a
nuclear power plant than a coal fired one.
Giga
> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>> "3877" <38...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:7osli0F...@mid.individual.net...
>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>>>> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:8eigi5hv2rmrf1o3u...@4ax.com...
>>>>> "Giga" <"Giga"
>>>>>>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of
>>>>>>> coal fired power generation with nukes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its
>>>>>>> power using nukes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10
>>>>>> years
>>>>>
>>>>> The obstacles are political, not engineering, and who
>>>>> says we have to convert in five or ten years?
>>>>
>>>> Certainly not engineering, we know how to build them, but I think
>>>> there is more to it than most people realise. They take 10-15 years
>>>> to build.
>>>
>>> Plenty of them have been built quicker than that.
>>
>> Any references for that assertion?
>
> China, Japan and France.
I'll take that as a no?
>>
>>>
>>> And NOT ONE commercially viable coal fired power station with full
>>> carbon capture has EVER been built anyway.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
>>>>> emission targets in five or ten years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
>>>
>>> Those will not meet those targets.
>>>
>>
>> I think in the UK in 10 years we need to reduce 20% or so?
>
> Much more than that is needed to stop the increase in atmospheric CO2
> levels.
Of course, but the targets are at least slightly realistic as they demand a
gradual change to lower levels.
>
> This seems
>> to me well within the possible region of effcecies.
>
> Even those inadequate cuts is not.
Any reference for that assumption? If I had said cuts of 110% of current
levels then this would not be possible, but 20%, I would guesstimate is just
about possible, and it is only a guess, very hard, very unlikely no doubt,
but well within the range of the possible. I will not discuss that any
further with you, as it is too clear.
>
Giga
There is a partial list of projects on this page. They show a predicted
build time of ca.7 years and the only one that appears to be closest to
being completd, on that list, will take 15 years. That is China, command
economy, loads of cash, massive demand, very hard working people especially
in construction.
Giga
> Giga <Giga wrote:
>> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>> news:8eigi5hv2rmrf1o3u...@4ax.com...
>>> "Giga" <"Giga"
>>>>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of
>>>>> coal fired power generation with nukes.
>>>>>
>>>>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its
>>>>> power using nukes.
>>>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10
>>>> years
>>> The obstacles are political, not engineering, and who
>>> says we have to convert in five or ten years?
>>
>> Certainly not engineering, we know how to build them, but I think there
>> is more to it than most people realise. They take 10-15 years to build.
>>
>>> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
>>> emission targets in five or ten years.
>>>
>>
>> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
>
> Not so much, no.
>
James A. Donald
> > quickly in the sense that it does not take long
> > between the bulldozers and the power generation,
> > even china finds red tape a problem. An America
> > that cannot rebuild the two towers, cannot possibly
> > build nuclear power plants. If something is
> > complicated, government cannot do it. If something
> > is complicated and highly regulated by government,
> > private enterprise cannot do it. Even if greenies
> > were not determined to destroy western civilization,
> > the US can no more build nuclear power plants than
> > it can put a man on the moon.
"Giga" <"Giga"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
Wikipedia is not a reliable source on controversial
topics.
> There is a partial list of projects on this page. They
> show a predicted build time of ca.7 years
http://www.nti.org/db/china/qinshan.htm
: : Construction on Unit 1 began on 8 June 1998
: : while construction on Unit 2 began on 25
: : September 1998. As of February 2000 piping
: : and equipment installation had begun. Unit 1
: : began transmitting electricity to power grids
: : on 19 November 2002,
http://www.nti.org/db/china/lingao.htm
: : Construction began on 15 May 1997 on Ling
: : Ao-1, with work on the containment being
: : completed in April 1999. On the night of 8
: : December 2001 Ling Ao-1 started trial
: : operations. It was incorporated into the
: : Guangdong power grid on 26 February 2002, and
: : began commercial operations on 28 May 2002. T
Build time is four to five years - a bit longer than I
incorrectly stated, but still decades sooner than carbon
capture is likely to be working.
Giga
> --
> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>> > But though China can physically build plants very
>> > quickly in the sense that it does not take long
>> > between the bulldozers and the power generation,
>> > even china finds red tape a problem. An America
>> > that cannot rebuild the two towers, cannot possibly
>> > build nuclear power plants. If something is
>> > complicated, government cannot do it. If something
>> > is complicated and highly regulated by government,
>> > private enterprise cannot do it. Even if greenies
>> > were not determined to destroy western civilization,
>> > the US can no more build nuclear power plants than
>> > it can put a man on the moon.
>
> "Giga" <"Giga"
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
>
> Wikipedia is not a reliable source on controversial
> topics.
It may not be the best but I have always found it to be pretty good. After
all no source is perfect!
>
>> There is a partial list of projects on this page. They
>> show a predicted build time of ca.7 years
>
> http://www.nti.org/db/china/qinshan.htm
> : : Construction on Unit 1 began on 8 June 1998
> : : while construction on Unit 2 began on 25
> : : September 1998. As of February 2000 piping
> : : and equipment installation had begun. Unit 1
> : : began transmitting electricity to power grids
> : : on 19 November 2002,
>
> http://www.nti.org/db/china/lingao.htm
> : : Construction began on 15 May 1997 on Ling
> : : Ao-1, with work on the containment being
> : : completed in April 1999. On the night of 8
> : : December 2001 Ling Ao-1 started trial
> : : operations. It was incorporated into the
> : : Guangdong power grid on 26 February 2002, and
> : : began commercial operations on 28 May 2002. T
>
> Build time is four to five years - a bit longer than I
> incorrectly stated, but still decades sooner than carbon
> capture is likely to be working.
>
Its one thing to build a couple of small reactors (not sure the size of
these), and to build hundreds of large ones. And are we comparing apples
with oranges not only in size but type as well?
3877
Yeah, nothing like your claim of centuries.
> this very advanced and rich western country.
Which had no drive for urgency because it believed that CO2 was a problem.
And even you should be able to grasp that it must be possible to do it quicker
than they did it, given that they now have established designs which clearly work.
3877
Just watching what carbon trading has not produced.
>>> and as tech improves.
>>
>> Makes a lot more sense to use nukes where the tech is already well
>> established and commercially viable even without any carbon trading.
> Dream on, 30,000 nuclear power plants in the next 10 years,
> haaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaahahahahahahah.
Your claims about carbon capture in spades. That isnt even commercially viable, nukes are.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It takes time to build those things
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No it does not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cool instant powerplants, are you high or something?
>>>>>
>>>>> It didnt not take the french anything like that long to build
>>>>> theirs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They have been at it for 50+ years!
>>>>
>>>> So has the west.
>>>
>>> btw France is a western country.
>>
>> Duh. I meant that the bulk of the west has, not just france.
>>
>>>>
>>>> And got 58 reactors. It is
>>>>> estimated it will take 40 years to replace those!
>>>>
>>>> Only by fools.
>>>>
>>>>>> China either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and only so many can be built at one time, due to lack of
>>>>>>> trained personnell.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You do not need trained personnel to repeat the building of the
>>>>>> same design iin more than one place.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really! So now you are an expert on nuclear power plant
>>>>> construction.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing special about nuke power plant construction in that regard.
>>>>
>>>
>>> lol
>>
>> What a stunning line in rational argument you have there.
>>
>
> I'm sorry to appear flippant but I'm sure there is a lot more to
> building a nuclear power plant than a coal fired one.
Irrelevant to whether its perfectly possible to repeatedly
build the same nuke design thats been shown to work.
3877
Take it any way you like. Plenty of their nukes havent taken 10-15 years.
And economically viable carbon capture will not even happen in that time anyway.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And NOT ONE commercially viable coal fired power station with full
>>>> carbon capture has EVER been built anyway.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
>>>>>> emission targets in five or ten years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>> Those will not meet those targets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think in the UK in 10 years we need to reduce 20% or so?
>>
>> Much more than that is needed to stop the increase in atmospheric CO2
>> levels.
>
> Of course, but the targets are at least slightly realistic as they
> demand a gradual change to lower levels.
But do not fix the purported problem.
>> This seems
>>> to me well within the possible region of effcecies.
>>
>> Even those inadequate cuts is not.
> Any reference for that assumption?
It is not an assumption. It is a fact.
If I had said cuts of 110% of
> current levels then this would not be possible, but 20%, I would
> guesstimate is just about possible,
Pity you can not list even a single place that has ever done that.
M Purcell
>
> Irrelevant to whether its perfectly possible to repeatedly
> build the same nuke design thats been shown to work.
Breeder reactors would be more efficient but I don't see that
happening. And of course the wastes from nuclear reactors are much
more hazardous than that of coal plants.
3877
Nothing like your 10-15 years.
and the only one that appears to
> be closest to being completd, on that list, will take 15 years.
The first one always takes longer.
That
> is China, command economy, loads of cash, massive demand, very hard
> working people especially in construction.
And no real commitment to replacing coal fired power stations with nukes.
France shows that it can certainly be done and so what if it does take 10-15 years anyway ?
3877
> "Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hgbuoi$cvf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Giga <Giga wrote:
>>> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>>> news:8eigi5hv2rmrf1o3u...@4ax.com...
>>>> "Giga" <"Giga"
>>>>>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of
>>>>>> coal fired power generation with nukes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its
>>>>>> power using nukes.
>>>>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10
>>>>> years
>>>> The obstacles are political, not engineering, and who
>>>> says we have to convert in five or ten years?
>>>
>>> Certainly not engineering, we know how to build them, but I think
>>> there is more to it than most people realise. They take 10-15 years
>>> to build.
>>>> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
>>>> emission targets in five or ten years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
>>
>> Not so much, no.
>>
> I'm only talking about the next 10 years of targets, I think UK ca20%.
Nothing like enough to make a difference if CO2 really is a problem.
Giga
Since when you heard of the predicted completition time being accurate?
>
> and the only one that appears to
>> be closest to being completd, on that list, will take 15 years.
>
> The first one always takes longer.
It is not the first one, perhaps you should take a glance at the page?
>
> That
>> is China, command economy, loads of cash, massive demand, very hard
>> working people especially in construction.
>
> And no real commitment to replacing coal fired power stations with nukes.
>
> France shows that it can certainly be done and so what if it does take
> 10-15 years anyway ?
Again, it is estimated to take 40 years to replace France's nukes. And took
about 50 years to build the 58 stations.
>
Giga
Any reference for that assumption?
>
> And economically viable carbon capture will not even happen in that time
> anyway.
Tea leaves again?
>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And NOT ONE commercially viable coal fired power station with full
>>>>> carbon capture has EVER been built anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
>>>>>>> emission targets in five or ten years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those will not meet those targets.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think in the UK in 10 years we need to reduce 20% or so?
>>>
>>> Much more than that is needed to stop the increase in atmospheric CO2
>>> levels.
>>
>> Of course, but the targets are at least slightly realistic as they
>> demand a gradual change to lower levels.
>
> But do not fix the purported problem.
Purported is right. However reducing Co2 output will reduce Co2 output.
>
>>> This seems
>>>> to me well within the possible region of effcecies.
>>>
>>> Even those inadequate cuts is not.
>
>> Any reference for that assumption?
>
> It is not an assumption. It is a fact.
I'll take that as a no.
>
> If I had said cuts of 110% of
>> current levels then this would not be possible, but 20%, I would
>> guesstimate is just about possible,
>
> Pity you can not list even a single place that has ever done that.
Guessland.
Giga
> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
>> "Les Cargill" <lcarg...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:hgbuoi$cvf$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Giga <Giga wrote:
>>>> "James A. Donald" <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:8eigi5hv2rmrf1o3u...@4ax.com...
>>>>> "Giga" <"Giga"
>>>>>>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of
>>>>>>> coal fired power generation with nukes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its
>>>>>>> power using nukes.
>>>>>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10
>>>>>> years
>>>>> The obstacles are political, not engineering, and who
>>>>> says we have to convert in five or ten years?
>>>>
>>>> Certainly not engineering, we know how to build them, but I think
>>>> there is more to it than most people realise. They take 10-15 years
>>>> to build.
>>>>> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
>>>>> emission targets in five or ten years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
>>>
>>> Not so much, no.
>>>
>> I'm only talking about the next 10 years of targets, I think UK ca20%.
>
> Nothing like enough to make a difference if CO2 really is a problem.
Yes.
Giga
Are so only the past, good.
>
>>>> and as tech improves.
>>>
>>> Makes a lot more sense to use nukes where the tech is already well
>>> established and commercially viable even without any carbon trading.
>
>> Dream on, 30,000 nuclear power plants in the next 10 years,
>> haaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaahaaaaaahahahahahahah.
>
> Your claims about carbon capture in spades. That isnt even commercially
> viable, nukes are.
Lets face it we are going to need everything that'll help to tackle this if
it really is happening mainly because of us.
It is relevant to how quickly they can be built. Especially if there is a
lack of the right expertise and personell.
3877
Its listed in the cites. They arent small reactors.
and to build hundreds of large ones. And are we comparing
> apples with oranges not only in size but type as well?
Yep. And blows your 10-15 years completely out of the water.
Giga
years time even if they decided to today. If they decided to build 100
(which really makes me smile) they would be lucky to do it in 25 years, more
like 50. We are talking 30,000 coal-fired power stations world wide. Even a
total all out world effort would be lucky to build 1000 nukes in the next 25
years, at best replacing 5000 coal fired stations (this is all purely off
the top of my head and instinct but I would think fairly generous). What do
you do about the remaining 25000? You better do something about them as
well. Anyway, I've said all I can, and researched all I willing to on this
subject...
3877
That is just plain wrong even with the nucleotides in the atmosphere.
Coal plants in fact put MUCH more into the atmosphere, just because
of the nucleotides in the coal that gets burnt.
3877
I did. Maybe you should with what James cited on the size and type of reactors.
>>
>> That
>>> is China, command economy, loads of cash, massive demand, very hard
>>> working people especially in construction.
>>
>> And no real commitment to replacing coal fired power stations with
>> nukes. France shows that it can certainly be done and so what if it does
>> take 10-15 years anyway ?
> Again, it is estimated to take 40 years to replace France's nukes.
Only a fool would come up with an estimate like that.
> And took about 50 years to build the 58 stations.
And it would obviously be a lot quicker now that the designs have been proven.
Unlike carbon capture that has not been done on a commercial scale at all.
In spades with capturing the percentage of the carbon that a nuke alternative would eliminate.
3877
It is not an assumption, it is a fact.
http://www.nti.org/db/china/qinshan.htm
http://www.nti.org/db/china/lingao.htm
>>
>> And economically viable carbon capture will not even happen in that
>> time anyway.
>
> Tea leaves again?
What are you using when you claim that it can be done quicker than nukes ?
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And NOT ONE commercially viable coal fired power station with
>>>>>> full carbon capture has EVER been built anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is no way short of autogenocide we can meet
>>>>>>>> emission targets in five or ten years.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Efficiencies would be easily enough AFAIK.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those will not meet those targets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think in the UK in 10 years we need to reduce 20% or so?
>>>>
>>>> Much more than that is needed to stop the increase in atmospheric
>>>> CO2 levels.
>>>
>>> Of course, but the targets are at least slightly realistic as they
>>> demand a gradual change to lower levels.
>>
>> But do not fix the purported problem.
>
>
> Purported is right. However reducing Co2 output will reduce Co2
> output.
>>
>>>> This seems
>>>>> to me well within the possible region of effcecies.
>>>>
>>>> Even those inadequate cuts is not.
>>
>>> Any reference for that assumption?
>>
>> It is not an assumption. It is a fact.
>
> I'll take that as a no.
You can take it any way you like.
>>
>> If I had said cuts of 110% of
>>> current levels then this would not be possible, but 20%, I would
>>> guesstimate is just about possible,
>>
>> Pity you can not list even a single place that has ever done that.
>
> Guessland.
Factland.
3877
So what is the point in fucking the environment so comprehensively for such
a completely useless 'target' ?
3877
Nope, just building nukes alone will fix the problem if there really is a problem.
And in the case of the US, building nukes and using the electricity from nukes
for heating, and not wasting natural gas on heating, and using it in cars, will
go a long way towards fixing their significant problem with crude oil imports too.
You don't need anything special when repeating an existing design over and over again.
In fact that is much more of a problem with carbon capture and storage.
Giga
The one that took six years (not including the reaction vessel manufacture)
is very small at 300KW (normally appears to be 1000-1500). The other ones
took 7-8 years (not including the specilaised equipment that must be
installed and apparently has tolerances of ca0.1mm.
>
> and to build hundreds of large ones. And are we comparing
>> apples with oranges not only in size but type as well?
>
> Yep. And blows your 10-15 years completely out of the water.
>
Why?
>
>
3877
They did that fine previously.
http://www.nti.org/db/china/qinshan.htm
http://www.nti.org/db/china/lingao.htm
The french and japanese did too.
If they decided to
> build 100 (which really makes me smile) they would be lucky to do it
> in 25 years, more like 50.
But you don't have any problem with believing that they can do that with carbon
capture and storage which is not even done on a commercial scale for the whole
of the output of even a single full sized coal fired power stations yet.
We are talking 30,000 coal-fired power
> stations world wide. Even a total all out world effort would be lucky
> to build 1000 nukes in the next 25 years,
True in spades of carbon capture and storage, essentially because there
are nothing like that many that are sited on suitable geology for the storage,
even if the carbon capture can be economically viable.
at best replacing 5000 coal
> fired stations (this is all purely off the top of my head and
> instinct but I would think fairly generous). What do you do about the
> remaining 25000? You better do something about them as well.
No need to.
Anyway,
> I've said all I can, and researched all I willing to on this
> subject...
Your problem.
3877
Still nothing like your 10-15 years.
>
>>
>> and to build hundreds of large ones. And are we comparing
>>> apples with oranges not only in size but type as well?
>>
>> Yep. And blows your 10-15 years completely out of the water.
>>
>
> Why?
Even you should be able to grasp that 7-8 years is half your 10-15 years.
M Purcell
You believe nucleotides are more hazardous than radioactive material?
Giga
I hope you are right.
At least not the same people mainly.
Giga
8 plus years is noithing like 10 years?
>>
>>>
>>> and to build hundreds of large ones. And are we comparing
>>>> apples with oranges not only in size but type as well?
>>>
>>> Yep. And blows your 10-15 years completely out of the water.
>>>
>>
>> Why?
>
> Even you should be able to grasp that 7-8 years is half your 10-15 years.
8 is not half of 10 (FYI that would be 5)
>
>
Giga
The you obviously misunderstood it.
Maybe you should with what James cited on the size and type of reactors.
I did, breifly.
>
>>>
>>> That
>>>> is China, command economy, loads of cash, massive demand, very hard
>>>> working people especially in construction.
>>>
>>> And no real commitment to replacing coal fired power stations with
>>> nukes. France shows that it can certainly be done and so what if it does
>>> take 10-15 years anyway ?
>> Again, it is estimated to take 40 years to replace France's nukes.
>
> Only a fool would come up with an estimate like that.
Seems reasonable to me FAIK.
>
>> And took about 50 years to build the 58 stations.
>
> And it would obviously be a lot quicker now that the designs have been
> proven.
>
> Unlike carbon capture that has not been done on a commercial scale at all.
1000000 tons per year in Norway.
Giga
Finally, coutsey of James. And how long did it take to build the reaction
vessels? How long was the whole process from deciding to build, to
generating electricity? Or do you imagine the time taken is just from
beginning of construction? Before you start that you better find a location,
right? A contractor? A manufacturer of the vessel etc? An architect?
Fianncing? Oversight? etc etc etc
>>>
>>> And economically viable carbon capture will not even happen in that
>>> time anyway.
>>
>> Tea leaves again?
>
> What are you using when you claim that it can be done quicker than nukes ?
Just common sense and a variety of knowledge.
Giga
I'm sure you remember from earlier posts. Target have to be progressive and
realistic. Do you want to open up yet another fairly boring tangent for
argument. Not for me thanks, go with God.
3877
What some of the others have taken.
3877
That isnt happening.
And is nothing like what they produce from all their fossil fuel power generation anyway.
3877
> Finally, coutsey of James.
Even you should have been able to find them given the countries I listed.
> And how long did it take to build the reaction vessels? How long was the whole process from deciding to build, to
> generating electricity?
Nothing like your 10-15 years with plenty of them.
> Or do you imagine the time taken is
> just from beginning of construction? Before you start that you better
> find a location, right? A contractor? A manufacturer of the vessel
> etc? An architect? Fianncing? Oversight? etc etc etc
Still nothing like your 10-15 years with plenty of them.
And carbon capture and storage is MUCH worse in all regards
and has the problem that NO ONE is doing it economically on
a commercial scale. NO ONE.
>>>> And economically viable carbon capture will not even happen in that
>>>> time anyway.
>>>
>>> Tea leaves again?
>>
>> What are you using when you claim that it can be done quicker than
>> nukes ?
>
> Just common sense and a variety of knowledge.
Pity that NO ONE is doing it economically on a commercial scale.
Nukes leave carbon capture and storage for dead in that regard.
tg
> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
> > "3877" <3...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> >news:7ovf66F...@mid.individual.net...
> >> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
> >>>news:7osu4oF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
> >>>>>news:7osld7F...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
> >>>>>>>news:7oqcm0F...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>news:7oq3jhF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>>>>>>>> Giga" <"Giga wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>news:4fe7ba9f-10c2-4bac...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0ObQKwxpHc&feature=related
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, didn't reealise it was such a mess in the US.
> >>>>>>>>>>> There are clearly enviromental issues here, that need to be
> >>>>>>>>>>> dealt with. However as regards Global Warming carbon capture
> >>>>>>>>>>> is just going to be necessary to have much chance of
> >>>>>>>>>>> reaching emmssions targets.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> The obvious alternative is to replace the use of coal fired
> >>>>>>>>>> power generation with nukes.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> That clearly works, France generates 90% of its power using
> >>>>>>>>>> nukes.
>
> >>>>>>>>> This is not really an alternative in the next 5-10 years,
>
> >>>>>>>> Yes it is if the US wants to go that route.
>
> >>>>>>> It takes a minimum of 10 years to build those things,
>
> >>>>>> No it does not. Plenty have been built quicker than that.
>
> >>>>>> And it will take even longer to do viable carbon capture anyway.
>
> >>>>>> what are you
> >>>>>>> thinking?
>
> >>>>>>>>> maybe 15-20 to make significant dent.
>
> >>>>>>>> Carbon capture would take even longer.
>
> >>>>>>> Already happening;
Repeating the same design is indeed the most effective way to get it
done. But you are overly optimistic about expertise and skills and
materials. Absent some as-yet nonexistent modular factory-built
modality, nuclear plants do require lots of skilled workers to
construct. They also require strict quality control of the materials.
To have any effect, you would have to begin lots of plants
simultaneously, and that means you lose the 'experience factor'. So
the supervisory model is difficult---not impossible, but it requires
more smarts than the current industry standard.
-tg
James A. Donald
<just(removetheseandaddmatthe end)ho...@yahoo.co> wrote:
>
"James A. Donald"
> > Wikipedia is not a reliable source on controversial
> > topics.
Giga
> It may not be the best but I have always found it to be pretty good.
'
Confirmation bias. It tells you what you want to believe.
On any controversial topic, Wikipedia will lie barefaced
3877
Nope.
Absent some as-yet nonexistent modular factory-built
> modality, nuclear plants do require lots of skilled workers to
> construct. They also require strict quality control of the materials.
All straight forward enough to deal with.
> To have any effect, you would have to begin lots of plants
> simultaneously, and that means you lose the 'experience factor'.
Nope, you just do the training first.
> So the supervisory model is difficult---
Nope.
not impossible, but it requires
> more smarts than the current industry standard.
Yes, but still completely doable.
Particularly if you start with a design that is designed to be
easy to build by those up to current building standards.
Rod Speed
No it doesnt on the basics like how HIV/AIDS is
spread and how serious a problem swine flu is etc.
And while its certainly not the best source on say what nukes
have been built, it does provide a reasonable place to start etc.
Giga
"tg" <tgde...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7562d17f-28b6-4cf2...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
-tg
3877 may be a troll, according to various posters. So far it seems to be to
me largely as well.
Giga
start construction, hee hee.
Giga
I presume you have an example of that?
Giga
True, looking again it is 1700000 tons per year:
Storing it underground avoids this problem and saves Statoil hundreds of
millions of euro in avoided carbon taxes. Since 1996, Sleipner has stored
about one million tonnes CO2 a year. A second project in the Sn�hvit gas
field in the Barents Sea stores 700,000 tonnes per year.[25]
>
> And is nothing like what they produce from all their fossil fuel power
> generation anyway.
>
That is pretty massive scale though isn't it (no need to answer).
3877
True in spades of carbon capture and storage.
Giga
When you couldn't find them it told me you were just talking off the stop of
your head.
>
>> And how long did it take to build the reaction vessels? How long was the
>> whole process from deciding to build, to generating electricity?
>
> Nothing like your 10-15 years with plenty of them.
Talking off the top of your head and probable trolling.
>
>> Or do you imagine the time taken is
>> just from beginning of construction? Before you start that you better
>> find a location, right? A contractor? A manufacturer of the vessel
>> etc? An architect? Fianncing? Oversight? etc etc etc
>
> Still nothing like your 10-15 years with plenty of them.
Talking off the top of your head and probable trolling.
>
> And carbon capture and storage is MUCH worse in all regards
> and has the problem that NO ONE is doing it economically on
> a commercial scale. NO ONE.
1700000 tons per year in norway.
>
>>>>> And economically viable carbon capture will not even happen in that
>>>>> time anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Tea leaves again?
>>>
>>> What are you using when you claim that it can be done quicker than
>>> nukes ?
>>
>> Just common sense and a variety of knowledge.
>
> Pity that NO ONE is doing it economically on a commercial scale.
>
> Nukes leave carbon capture and storage for dead in that regard.
>
Nukes are clearly more established technology, and we know just how
difficult they are to build.
Giga
That shows the construction time.
> The french and japanese did too.
Any links for this?
>
> If they decided to
>> build 100 (which really makes me smile) they would be lucky to do it
>> in 25 years, more like 50.
>
> But you don't have any problem with believing that they can do that with
> carbon
> capture and storage which is not even done on a commercial scale for the
> whole
> of the output of even a single full sized coal fired power stations yet.
Yep.
>
> We are talking 30,000 coal-fired power
>> stations world wide. Even a total all out world effort would be lucky
>> to build 1000 nukes in the next 25 years,
>
> True in spades of carbon capture and storage, essentially because there
> are nothing like that many that are sited on suitable geology for the
> storage,
> even if the carbon capture can be economically viable.
Both approaches can be used together of course.
>
> at best replacing 5000 coal
>> fired stations (this is all purely off the top of my head and
>> instinct but I would think fairly generous). What do you do about the
>> remaining 25000? You better do something about them as well.
>
> No need to.
Phew.
Giga
James A. Donald
> start construction, hee hee.
From the time the Chinese break the ground, to the time that power is
delivered reliably and regularly to the grid, is typically four to
five years.
From the time the Chinese decide to build a nuke, to the time they
break the ground, is typically two years or so.
For example the Chinese decided in 2006 to go with the AP1000
technology. The contract was signed in 2007, the first AP1000 plant
will be online in 2013 - seven years from deciding in principle, six
years from deciding specifics.
James A. Donald
> > > > Wikipedia is not a reliable source on
> > > > controversial topics.
Giga
> > > It may not be the best but I have always found it
> > > to be pretty good.
James A. Donald:
> > Confirmation bias. It tells you what you want to
> > believe.
> >
> > On any controversial topic, Wikipedia will lie
> > barefaced
"Giga"
> I presume you have an example of that?
Communism, anthropogenic global warming. The more
disturbing stuff from the Climategate files and the
Comintern files cannot exist in Wikipedia for more than
seconds at a time.
Another example is common descent. Wikipedia likes to
attribute common descent to Darwin, so that people can
claim to be Darwinists while rejecting every single idea
that Darwin introduced. Wikipedia therefore asserts
that Lamarck proposed "parallel descent without
branching" - a blatant barefaced lie.
See my blog page
http://blog.jim.com/science/denying-darwinism.html for
quotes from Lamarck where he proposes common descent.
When I inserted into Wikipedia an image of the relevant
pages, in particular page 463 of Lamarck's "Philosophie
Zoologique") it was deleted in 19 seconds.
A check of the history global warming pages indicates
that the vigilance against global warming thought crimes
is one thousand times as intense as the vigilance
against evolution thought crimes.
Giga
perfectly first time and there are no-hold-ups, but this *never* happens
practically. And one hold-up leads to others etc etc.
Giga
ClimateGate stuff is obviously very controversial, however I search for
ClimateGate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
It seems very comprehensive. Maybe you were just posting to the wrong page.
James A. Donald
> > For example the Chinese decided in 2006 to go with the AP1000
> > technology. The contract was signed in 2007, the first AP1000 plant
> > will be online in 2013 - seven years from deciding in principle, six
> > years from deciding specifics.
"Giga"
> I very much doubt it will be finished that quick.
The ones that have been completed, were completed with in four or five
years of breaking ground. Ground was broken on the AP1000 power
plants in 2008, so on past performance, 2013 is what we would expect.
James A. Donald
> >> > > > Wikipedia is not a reliable source on
> >> > > > controversial topics.
"Giga"
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
>
> It seems very comprehensive. Maybe you were just posting to the wrong page.
Again, confirmation bias. It tells you what you passionately hope is
true, what you would very much like to believe, what you wish was
true, so you do not notice anything strange.
You are not going to find in Wikipedia any references to the most
infamous line from the climategate files:
“So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking.”
Google for "what the hell did Tim do"
<http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22what+the+hell+did+tim+do%22>
You will notice that the Wikipedia entry has no point of contact with
reality, nor with what people are in fact discussing.
Giga
That's true. Maybe they will be that quick.
Giga
> "James A. Donald"
>> >> > > > Wikipedia is not a reliable source on
>> >> > > > controversial topics.
>
> "Giga"
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
>>
>> It seems very comprehensive. Maybe you were just posting to the wrong
>> page.
>
> Again, confirmation bias. It tells you what you passionately hope is
> true, what you would very much like to believe, what you wish was
> true, so you do not notice anything strange.
I'm not that emotionally involved with Wikipedia.
>
> You are not going to find in Wikipedia any references to the most
> infamous line from the climategate files:
>
> "So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking."
>
> Google for "what the hell did Tim do"
>
> <http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22what+the+hell+did+tim+do%22>
>
> You will notice that the Wikipedia entry has no point of contact with
> reality, nor with what people are in fact discussing.
>
I must admit I'm not sure what this Tim things is all about? Do you have a
more specific link at all?
James A. Donald
James A. Donald:
> > Again, confirmation bias. It tells you what you
> > passionately hope is true, what you would very much
> > like to believe, what you wish was true, so you do
> > not notice anything strange.
"Giga"
> I'm not that emotionally involved with Wikipedia.
You are, however, emotionally involved with the idea
that the Climategate files are no big deal.
James A. Donald:
> > You are not going to find in Wikipedia any references to the most
> > infamous line from the climategate files:
> >
> > "So what the hell did Tim do?!! As I keep asking."
> >
> > Google for "what the hell did Tim do"
> >
> > <http://www.google.com.au/search?q=%22what+the+hell+did+tim+do%22>
> >
> > You will notice that the Wikipedia entry has no point of contact with
> > reality, nor with what people are in fact discussing.
"Giga"
> I must admit I'm not sure what this Tim things is all about? Do you have a
> more specific link at all?
<http://skepticalmi.wordpress.com/2009/11/24/one-more-thing-to-take-from-climategate/>
: : So what’s the fourth take home message from
: : Climategate? This: CRU’s temperature profile
: : is an incoherent mess. Harry’s basically
: : trying to fit the programming to published
: : results to see how they did it, and can’t.
: : Along the way, he discovers garbage data,
: : horrible code, undocumented files,
: : unexplained paranormal phenomena, and piles
: : upon piles of errors.
http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/data-horribilis-harryreadmetxt-file.html
<http://sanitysentinel.blogspot.com/2009/12/wild-about-harry.html>
<http://blog.jim.com/global-warming/thousands-of-scientists-endorse-evidence-of-anthropogenic-global-warming.html>
Giga
> --
> James A. Donald:
>> > Again, confirmation bias. It tells you what you
>> > passionately hope is true, what you would very much
>> > like to believe, what you wish was true, so you do
>> > not notice anything strange.
>
> "Giga"
>> I'm not that emotionally involved with Wikipedia.
>
> You are, however, emotionally involved with the idea
> that the Climategate files are no big deal.
On the contrary, after reading a very small sample I was dissapointed how
ordinary and quite professional they were. I'm very interested in all the
stuff being discovered about them and the data files attached.
Many thanks
Giga
thought it was done I'm hitting yet another problem that's based on the
hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform data integrity, it's
just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.'
That is scary!
James A. Donald
> ordinary and quite professional they were.
Evidently you have not been reading the same files I have. Try
reading the files selected by skeptics, rather than the faithful.
The climategate files reveal that the graphs of doom are
irreproducible, for Harry was unable to reproduce them, except by
means at best extremely dubious, "So what the hell did Tim do?!!" at
worst frankly fraudulent. "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for
decline!!"
The documents directory reveals that data issuing from the Warming
alarmists is fake, for it was Harry's job to produce or reproduce
these graphs of doom, and he describes in alarming detail how the
graphs of doom were manufactured. Every graph generated from the
programs and data of the documents directory of climategate files is
at worst a lie, at best produced without regard for the truth, which
procedure casts doubt on those graphs of doom were not derived from
these files, and proves the falsity of those graphs of doom that Harry
was required to reproduce, for he was unable to reproduce any of them
by legitimate means.
The climategate files reveal that the method of anthropogenic warmist
alarmism is that "scientists" construct a consensus, and *then* they
examine data and papers for conformity with the consensus. Data that
fails to conform to theory is rejected, then hidden or deleted. Papers
that fail to conform are rejected. They then direct some menial
postgrad student, first Tim, then later Harry, to produce graphs that
show the result that they have already determined that the graphs will
show.
What the climategate papers reveal is religion, not science, for when
we read Harry's comments and code, it is apparent that his job is not
to find what the data shows, but to force the data to show a result
that has been predetermined.
Giga
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:29:12 -0000, "Giga" <"Giga"
>> On the contrary, after reading a very small sample I was dissapointed how
>> ordinary and quite professional they were.
>
> Evidently you have not been reading the same files I have. Try
> reading the files selected by skeptics, rather than the faithful.
>
> The climategate files reveal that the graphs of doom are
> irreproducible, for Harry was unable to reproduce them, except by
> means at best extremely dubious, "So what the hell did Tim do?!!" at
> worst frankly fraudulent. "Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for
> decline!!"
>
> The documents directory reveals that data issuing from the Warming
> alarmists is fake, for it was Harry's job to produce or reproduce
> these graphs of doom, and he describes in alarming detail how the
> graphs of doom were manufactured.
I suppose a charitable interpretation of that evidence might be that they
genuinely had lost their original data, as they claimed, and were trying, at
first, reconstruct it. However it also clearly shows how much manipulation
that data must have gone through, if the task was so difficult, which is
worrying.
Every graph generated from the
> programs and data of the documents directory of climategate files is
> at worst a lie, at best produced without regard for the truth, which
> procedure casts doubt on those graphs of doom were not derived from
> these files, and proves the falsity of those graphs of doom that Harry
> was required to reproduce, for he was unable to reproduce any of them
> by legitimate means.
Having studied stats a bit I know how very careful one has to be to get a
fair result. That does not seem to have been the case here from what little
I can look at.
>
> The climategate files reveal that the method of anthropogenic warmist
> alarmism is that "scientists" construct a consensus, and *then* they
> examine data and papers for conformity with the consensus.
It really does seem that some have done that. WOuldn't want to geenralise
too much.
Data that
> fails to conform to theory is rejected, then hidden or deleted. Papers
> that fail to conform are rejected.
There certainly seems to be evidence of pressure being put on journals and
colleagues to influence publications. And of course for many academics it is
'publish or perish'. People can really just loose their livelihood, very
quickly, if journals refuse to publish their work. Maybe this is the
mechanism by which so many people have been forced to follow the orthodoxy,
because they need to publish. As often happens what seem like sensible
performance targets, such as number of publications, turns out a disaster. I
wonder if our whoel academic and tertiary system must not go through a
massive reform of its systems, especially if AGW is proven to be false. In
that case it will certainly be damning of the current regimes.