"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/
A standalone science fiction novel of the near future. I read the
well printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by Tor
Books in 2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023. I was very
proud of myself, I never threw the book against the wall even though I
was tempted at least a half dozen times. I do not agree the premise
of the book but I do see the possibility of the events in it
occurring.
The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly 30
years later. The primary focus of the book is the struggle between
the haves and the have-nots of the future. There is no middle class
in the future. The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the tremendous inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in
2029 as documented by Lionel Shriver's masterpiece novel "The
Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047". The haves are nicknamed the zottas
by the have-nots.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and
walkaways. The wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to
failures of Social Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other
federal social programs. The walkaways have literally walked away
from society and live individually or gathered together in communes,
choosing not to participate in the cities. The walkaways are not
highly regarded by society and are severely persecuted by the zottas,
to the point of mass deaths. More and more have-nots are becoming
walkaways over time which has the zottas extremely concerned.
My rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)
Lynn
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/
A standalone science fiction novel of the near future. I read the well printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by Tor Books in 2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023. I was very proud of myself, I never threw the book against the wall even though I was tempted at least a half dozen times. I do not agree the premise of the book but I do see the possibility of the events in it occurring.
The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly 30 years later. The primary focus of the book is the struggle between the haves and the have-nots of the future. There is no middle class in the future. The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the tremendous inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in 2029 as documented by Lionel Shriver's masterpiece novel "The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047". The haves are nicknamed the zottas by the have-nots.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and walkaways. The wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to failures of Social Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other federal social programs. The walkaways have literally walked away from society and live individually or gathered together in communes, choosing not to participate in the cities.
The walkaways are not highly regarded by society and are severely persecuted by the zottas, to the point of mass deaths. More and more have-nots are becoming walkaways over time which has the zottas extremely concerned.
My rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)
Lynn
Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in
fact, what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is
one where the "ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back
seat?
Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while
having story and not letting the ism dictate too much.
On 1/30/2024 3:55 AM, D wrote:
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/
A standalone science fiction novel of the near future. I read the well >>> printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by Tor Books in >>> 2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023. I was very proud of
myself, I never threw the book against the wall even though I was tempted >>> at least a half dozen times. I do not agree the premise of the book but I
do see the possibility of the events in it occurring.
The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly 30
years later. The primary focus of the book is the struggle between the >>> haves and the have-nots of the future. There is no middle class in the >>> future. The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the tremendous
inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in 2029 as
documented by Lionel Shriver's masterpiece novel "The Mandibles: A Family, >>> 2029-2047". The haves are nicknamed the zottas by the have-nots.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and walkaways. >>> The wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to failures of
Social Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other federal social
programs. The walkaways have literally walked away from society and live >>> individually or gathered together in communes, choosing not to participate >>> in the cities. The walkaways are not highly regarded by society and are >>> severely persecuted by the zottas, to the point of mass deaths. More and >>> more have-nots are becoming walkaways over time which has the zottas
extremely concerned.
My rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)
Lynn
Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in fact, >> what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is one where the >> "ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back seat?
Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while having >> story and not letting the ism dictate too much.
Tough to say. The story is well woven between the isms. However, the isms are you need to be self reliant, the government is bad, the rich are bad, we need to stop trashing the planet, fossil fuels are bad, hydrogen fuel is good, back to nature is good, hot and cold spas are good, money is bad, ownership is bad, etc, etc, etc.
The problem that I had was the communes. Work is voluntary but eating is necessary, nobody owned the commune so they had to shame people into working,
etc. It is a good story and one possible outlook over the next hundred years
that I find not likely just due to human nature.
Definitely not a Heinlein. Or a Scalzi. Or a Steven Gould. You have my six
star list, nothing from Cory Doctorow is on the list. But, "Little Brother" was the closest.
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Brother-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765323117/
Lynn
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in
fact, what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is
one where the "ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back
seat?
Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while
having story and not letting the ism dictate too much.
Or perhaps Heinlein uses -isms that you find less objectionable and
therefore don't notice as much. As much as I enjoy his stories, I've
always found his characters' habit of stopping everything to lecture
about some topic or another for several pages a bit tiring, whether the
topic is libertarianism (early Heinlein) or
having-sex-with-your-kids-ism (late Heinlein).
On 1/31/2024 4:07 AM, D wrote:
On Tue, 30 Jan 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 1/30/2024 3:55 AM, D wrote:Thank you very much for the clarification Lynn. I have read Little Brother >> and it was ok but not great. I will look up Scalzi and Gould instead. =)
On Mon, 29 Jan 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
"Walkaway: A Novel" by Cory Doctorow
https://www.amazon.com/Walkaway-Novel-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765392771/ >>>>>
A standalone science fiction novel of the near future. I read the well >>>>> printed and well bound 500 page trade paperback published by Tor Books >>>>> in 2018 that I purchased new from Amazon in 2023. I was very proud of >>>>> myself, I never threw the book against the wall even though I was
tempted at least a half dozen times. I do not agree the premise of the >>>>> book but I do see the possibility of the events in it occurring.
The novel approximately starts in the year 2100 and ends up roughly 30 >>>>> years later. The primary focus of the book is the struggle between the >>>>> haves and the have-nots of the future. There is no middle class in the >>>>> future. The haves are billionaires and trillionaires after the
tremendous inflation caused by the semi failure of the USA Dollar in >>>>> 2029 as documented by Lionel Shriver's masterpiece novel "The Mandibles: >>>>> A Family, 2029-2047". The haves are nicknamed the zottas by the
have-nots.
https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
The have-nots are split into two groups, the wage slaves and walkaways. >>>>> The wage slaves are tremendously burdened by debt due to failures of >>>>> Social Security, Medicare, WIC, SNAP, and many other federal social >>>>> programs. The walkaways have literally walked away from society and >>>>> live individually or gathered together in communes, choosing not to >>>>> participate in the cities. The walkaways are not highly regarded by >>>>> society and are severely persecuted by the zottas, to the point of mass >>>>> deaths. More and more have-nots are becoming walkaways over time which >>>>> has the zottas extremely concerned.
My rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Amazon rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars (1,947 reviews)
Lynn
Thank you Lynn, might give it a go. However, I don't like overly
politicized books that lean heavily on feminism, libertarianism or in >>>> fact, what ever "ism" the author enjoys. Would you say that this is one >>>> where the "ism" sits in the front seat and the story in the back seat? >>>>
Heinlein for me, strikes a good balance between exploring ism, while
having story and not letting the ism dictate too much.
Tough to say. The story is well woven between the isms. However, the >>> isms are you need to be self reliant, the government is bad, the rich are >>> bad, we need to stop trashing the planet, fossil fuels are bad, hydrogen >>> fuel is good, back to nature is good, hot and cold spas are good, money is >>> bad, ownership is bad, etc, etc, etc.
The problem that I had was the communes. Work is voluntary but eating is >>> necessary, nobody owned the commune so they had to shame people into
working, etc. It is a good story and one possible outlook over the next >>> hundred years that I find not likely just due to human nature.
Definitely not a Heinlein. Or a Scalzi. Or a Steven Gould. You have my
six star list, nothing from Cory Doctorow is on the list. But, "Little >>> Brother" was the closest.
https://www.amazon.com/Little-Brother-Cory-Doctorow/dp/0765323117/
Lynn
Best regards,
Daniel
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so is John Varley, another excellent author.
Lynn
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are >excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so >>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily agree.
The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the
hysterics get less CO2.
Everyone wins!
On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
On 2/4/2024 3:19 AM, D wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so >>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where
environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily agree.
The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the
technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the
hysterics get less CO2.
Everyone wins!
Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_
hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or
just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing >something. "Change is EVIL!"
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so >>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any
of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to it >and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 years >or so.
On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are >>excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are >>>excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so >>>is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
I am very, very much in favor of nuclear power. But I am against nuclear >power systems which produce plutonium as a byproduct, because refining >plutonium for use in bombs is chemical process that is relatively simple >compared with separating uranium isotopes. And I am not in favor of nuclear >bombs.
It's a thing that can be done, but people need to actually spend the money
to do it instead of yelling about how nuclear power is terrible or how nuclear >power is wonderful.
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 2/4/2024 3:19 AM, D wrote:are
=20
=20
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
=20
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire=A0 <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.=A0 All of his books =
Scalzi, soexcellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.=A0 So is John =
=20is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same:=A0 Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where=20
environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily = >agree.=20
The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the=20
technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the=20
hysterics get less CO2.
=20
Everyone wins!
Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=20 >>hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or=20 >>just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing=20 >>something. "Change is EVIL!"
And here is a word for them:
plastic
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:41:35 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
so
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are >>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=
is John Varley, another excellent author.=20
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any= >=20
of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to = >it=20
and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 = >years=20
or so.
And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are >>excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so
is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
Canada (mostly due to its proximity to the US) has managed without
nukes though is clearly one of at least 3-4 countries (e.g. plus
Germany and Japan, maybe S Korea) in 6-12 months if the order went out
from their president / prime minister
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 00:05:24 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt ><usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are >>>excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so >>>is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Jerry Pournelle was also constantly rantng about nuclear power in his
BYTE magazine columns 20 years ago.
On 2/5/2024 1:21 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
On 2/4/2024 3:19 AM, D wrote:Scalzi, so
=20
=20
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
=20
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire=A0 <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today.=A0 All of his books = >>> are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate >>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior.=A0 So is John =
agree.=20=20is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same:=A0 Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where=20
environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily =
The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the=20 >>>>> technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the=20 >>>>> hysterics get less CO2.
=20
Everyone wins!
Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=20
hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" or=20 >>>> just because they can't handle being told about better ways of doing=20 >>>> something. "Change is EVIL!"
And here is a word for them:
plastic
chemical feedstocks in general.
But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 10:43:42 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
I dunno - my brother's brother in law was a Canadian nuclear engineer
who in his prime (70s/80s) was regularly installing CANDUs in all
sorts of foreign climes.
Canada (mostly due to its proximity to the US) has managed without
nukes though is clearly one of at least 3-4 countries (e.g. plus
Germany and Japan, maybe S Korea) in 6-12 months if the order went out
from their president / prime minister
Obviously I mean without Uncle Sam or other nuclear power gifting it
to them.
In article <eev3si9pet0n8tecluu7jf4tg6ftv5rome@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 00:05:24 -0000 (UTC), Mike Van Pelt
<usenet@mikevanpelt.com> wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are
excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate
Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi, so >>>> is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Jerry Pournelle was also constantly rantng about nuclear power in his
BYTE magazine columns 20 years ago.
I regret to inform you Byte ceased publication a quarter century ago.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:41:35 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
so
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are >>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate >>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,=
years=20is John Varley, another excellent author.=20
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any= >> =20
of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to = >> it=20
and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =
or so.
And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.
Not very likely:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 17:12:14 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/5/2024 1:21 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 10:40:16 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
=20Except many of the "deniers" are deniers because they _want_=3D20
hydrocarbons. To keep their jobs, their profits, their "history" = >or=3D20
just because they can't handle being told about better ways of = >doing=3D20
something. "Change is EVIL!"
And here is a word for them:
plastic
chemical feedstocks in general.
=20
But 90% of the deniers profit comes from the stuff that's burned.
=93It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his
salary depends on his not understanding it.=94 - Upton Sinclair
It may take awhile, but if we keep burning fossil fuels, the price
paid for them to make plastic (OK, chemical feedstocks in general)
will rise to the point that they /do/ make more that way, and not
burning them will suddenly make sense to them.
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:41:35 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
years=20
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are >>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate >>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,= >>> so=20
is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any= >>> =20
of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to = >>> it=20
and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 =
or so.
And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.
Not very likely:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/
What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
and
https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility >studies for another couple of years or so.
This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.
On 2/6/2024 2:34 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:41:35 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
=20
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are >>>>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate >>>>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,= >>>>> so=20
is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever. >>>>>>>> They have another agenda entirely.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any=
of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to =it=20
and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 = >>>>> years=20
or so.
And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.
Not very likely:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/
What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
and
https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility >>> studies for another couple of years or so.
This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
You're aware that France already generates nearly 3/4 of its
electricity with nukes? To me, that's quite a bit of 'displacement'.
pt
Part of why Canada can do without nukes is that a Canadian is in command
of NORAD 50% of the time.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 13:41:35 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2024, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 04/02/2024 00:05, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <upeb3l$1m4ku$1@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
I will be posting a Steven Gould review today. All of his books are >>>>>>>> excellent even though he is a Global Warming XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate >>>>>>>> Change XXXXXX XXXXXX Climate Disruption warrior. So is John Scalzi,= >>>> so=20
is John Varley, another excellent author.
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
=20
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever. >>>>>>> They have another agenda entirely.
=20
(I've been advocating phasing out coal in favor of nuclear
for going on 50 years.)
Nuclear power can be done well, but traditionally
it's been a figleaf for the nuclear weapons
programme, and a source of covered-up everlasting
deadly pollution. So I use the stuff, but
I look at it sceptically.
I was raised on science fiction in which future
men had to protect their posterity by wearing
lead-lined underwear to block radiation
when they visited Earth from space, and that
is saying something. I suppose it also would
apply to women, if there were any in the stories.
I think SMR:s are a great step in the right direction! I don't think any= >>>> =20
of the designs are currently in production, but I am looking forward to = >>>> it=20
and I am hopeful that I will see one in production within the next 5 = >>>> years=20
or so.
And how long have they been only 5 years away?
Which is not to say it might happen ... this time.
Not very likely:
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/nuscale-uamps-project-small-modular-reactor-ramanasmr-/705717/
What a shame, but thank you very much for the link. There are others
though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BWRX-300
and
https://www.knxt.se/studsvik
Will be very exciting to see if any of those potential projects will
actually initiate something or if they will remain frozen in feasibility
studies for another couple of years or so.
This is another favourite: https://www.blykalla.com/.
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
over budget!).
So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there from the 1960s).
Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
over budget!).
Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
some time before the present day?
On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and
the motivation.
Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water. We have an unlimited >amount of each in the USA.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
over budget!).
So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there >> from the 1960s).
Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry >picked by me from here >(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
"The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough >conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go
for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
We also must keep in mind that endless "peak oil" predictions that always >fail.
If the market judges that new uranium shall be mined, they will.
So nuclear is the only sustainable way forward, especially coupled with >increase research efforts.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:51:01 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Part of why Canada can do without nukes is that a Canadian is in command
of NORAD 50% of the time.
Is it really 50% of the time? I know a Canadian was in command on 9/11
and was greatly praised by Dubya for his fast action in closing US
skies after the first collision with one of the Twin Towers
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
over budget!).
So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there >>> from the 1960s).
Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but, >>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry
picked by me from here
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
"The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.
Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?
and 270
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go
for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
On 2/7/2024 8:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate >>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
over budget!).
So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't >>>> any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there >>>> from the 1960s).
Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but, >>>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry >>> picked by me from here
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is: >>>
"The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.
Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?
and 270
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go >>> for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining >world-wide for many years now.
On 2/7/2024 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to
show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and >>>> the motivation.
Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water. We have an unlimited
amount of each in the USA.
"unlimited" is hyperbole.
Not in this case. We have 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas
in the USA.
We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural gas in the US
The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets. The
wonders of fracking.
On 2/7/2024 2:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/7/2024 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to >>>>>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means >>>>>> and
the motivation.
Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water. We have an
unlimited
amount of each in the USA.
"unlimited" is hyperbole.
Not in this case. We have 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas
in the USA.
Cite? Economically recoverable? At what environmental cost?
We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural gas in the US
Cite? At what recovery cost and what annual usage rate? And who
has provided the 'estimate'? EIA or industry?
The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets. The
wonders of fracking.
Ah, which goes back to cost.
And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
Of course, you seem to be of the minority opinion that atmospheric
CH4 and CO2 emissions from combustion aren't a problem and don't
affect global temperatures.
Do your own research and prove to me that I am wrong. Just remember one thing, I work in crude oil and natural gas daily from the long term
planning viewpoint.
First on your list should be to figure the difference between proven
reserves and unproven reserves. Those are legal terms and mean a big
deal to Exxon, Shell, and many others.
You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are
experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining >world-wide for many years now.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate
discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
over budget!).
So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and there >>> from the 1960s).
Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but, >>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities
sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry >>picked by me from here >>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
"The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating >>rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough >>conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.
Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?
and 270
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go >>for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
We also must keep in mind that endless "peak oil" predictions that always >>fail.
Actually, we hit peak oil a few years ago.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart
And that's thanks to fracking, which just extends the end-date by a
decade or two.
And the abiogenic theories of crude formation are bullshit.
If the market judges that new uranium shall be mined, they will.
Where will they find the uranium? And at what cost?
So nuclear is the only sustainable way forward, especially coupled with >>increase research efforts.
No, a mix of sources (wind, solar, pumped storage, nuclear, hydro) all working together will provide energy security. No single source will.
But there limits to all of them, solar included.
You really must read Dr Murphy's textbook, "Energy and Human ambitions
on a finite Planet". https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
It's very accessible and the first chapter is a good, laymans introduction
to the physical and chemical concepts involved in energy production.
It discusses all potential sources of energy, their advantages and their limitations. From a physics standpoint.
On 2/7/2024 2:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
...
You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are
experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining
world-wide for many years now.
Yet the population keeps increasing. And the major econonomic
systems are all based on continual growth, which relies on growth
in energy consumption.
Yes, "15 billion" is a stretch, but somewhere between 8 and 15 before
growth stops isn't unlikely, absent war.
Then, if all 8 billion current residents using as much energy per
capita as the United States, that would significantly increase the
planetary energy consumption beyond the current 18TW.
Regardless, it doesn't appear nuclear fission power production
can supply more than a fraction of planetary energy consumption
absent wishful thinking.
“Keep a very careful eye on China's economy”
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2024/02/keep-very-careful-eye-on-chinas-economy.html
"The Chinese demographics are a total horror show, with Shanghai
university recently publishing an article to the effect of "Urban birth
rate of .5" or less, because "China." Russia is on race to the bottom
with them. I Remember Peter Zeihan (demographer among other things)
saying that with the current data China would be at 645 million or less
by 2050. NOT 2100. Fastest aging society in history. With lowest birth
rate (worse than during the Holocaust) and worse than during the Black
death. And absolute Enron numbers on their economy. And 1 child policy,
now 2, now 3, now Please have kids you peasants! The demographics chart
for China looks like a lopsided mushroom cloud. CCP admitted to over 100 >million people dont exist, mostly women under 40. (The ones who have all
the kids) over 30 million more men than women. Which is so much worse
than it sounds."
Wow.
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
global supply of U.
The global supply of U is enough for many
thousands of years.
reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven
reserves?
The 70's articles tended to emphasis the exponential population growth
ala Club of Rome. You do the the same. It certainly has an effect, but >nowhere near the "Limits of Growth" effect that was predicted.
The 70's articles did not take into account the effect of technology;
you dismiss the effect also.
U cost is NOT currently a major factor in the cost of nuclear power.
Nuclear power is expensive because of the capital costs not the
operating costs. And even the operating costs are not that highly
dependent on U costs. Doubling the cost of enriched U will increase
Repeating the 70's oil arguments for uranium should convince no-one in >today's world.
Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities >sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
What are these people's position on nuclear power?
My touchstone remains the same: Anyone who is opposed to
nuclear power *does not really care* about CO2/climate-whatever.
They have another agenda entirely.
I think nuclear power is one of those healing technologies where >environmental "hysterics" and environmental "deniers" can happily agree.
The deniers get clean, reliable and cheap (if you de-politicize the >technology to lower the cost and use modern SMR:s) energy, and the
hysterics get less CO2.
Everyone wins!
In article <1RvwN.58394$24ld.10093@fx07.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but,
of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in quantities >>sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
According to a paper I read back in the early 80s, Japan
demonstrated sometime about 1979 an ion exchange process
that could extract uranium from seawater at a cost of about
$750/pound in 1979 dollars. Expensive, yes, but given the
energy content of uranium...
And something needs to be done about the waste situation, particularly
if the fleet is to be expanded substantially.
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not
global supply of U.
Yes, that's what I said.
The global supply of U is enough for many
thousands of years.
That's pure speculation. There is a shitload of U
dispersed throughout the ocean. But at 3ppb, the cost of
"mining" it is far more than would be economically feasible.
? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven
reserves?
You are conflating me with Lynn - I never anything about proving
oil-death either way.
The 70's articles tended to emphasis the exponential population growth
ala Club of Rome. You do the the same. It certainly has an effect, but >>nowhere near the "Limits of Growth" effect that was predicted.
I understand exponential growth. The recommended inflation rate
of circa 2.8% is exponential, with about a 70 year doubling period, for example.
The 70's articles did not take into account the effect of technology;
you dismiss the effect also.
I don't know who you're talking to here. I certainly take that into
account - in all respects from energy efficiency to energy production. Clearly fracking, for example, has extended the usefulness of a lot
of played out oilfields. But, the output curves for fracking wells
are significantly shorter than regular production wells.
Fracking is a temporary blip in the exploitation of a fundamentally
limited resource. Technology can't create energy from nothing
(absent Stargate zed-pee-emms)
U cost is NOT currently a major factor in the cost of nuclear power. >>Nuclear power is expensive because of the capital costs not the
Indeed. Look at Vogtle #3, which just came on line, or Vogtle #4.
That's for two 1GB reactors. Do the math. Who's gonna bankroll
additional nuclear plants using the current state of the art
technology?
Don't get me wrong - I believe nuclear fission power production
will always play a role in energy production. It cannot, however
ever produce enough to replace current a future fossil sources
by itself. I never wrote otherwise.
operating costs. And even the operating costs are not that highly >>dependent on U costs. Doubling the cost of enriched U will increase
You are basing all this on the assumption that there are 1000 years
of U reserves (yes, 2.8ppb throughout the crust).
"Total world resources of uranium, as with any other mineral
or metal, are not known exactly. The only meaningful measure
of long-term security of supply is the known reserves in the
ground capable of being mined."
The chart shows 8 million tons assured and inferred resources as
of 2017. Of which 3 million have already been mined. Each reactor
requires 67,500 tonnes per year.
https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/uranium-resources/supply-of-uranium.aspx
They note the 90 year supply (for a four-hundred reactor fleet).
They go on to add
" Further exploration and higher prices will certainly, on the
basis of present geological knowledge, yield further resources
as present ones are used up."
Repeating the 70's oil arguments for uranium should convince no-one in >>today's world.
I just posted the facts. You're posting speculation. I'll be happy
to see more economically discoverable Uranium on the market - I've been
a shareholder in CCJ for more than a decade. I just would not make
any plans that _count_ on it for survival.
I'll just note that fracking is like squeezing the last drops from
a sponge. Eventually, the sponge is dry.
Transuranics (the long-lived stuff) can in principle be burned
up by putting them in new fuel rods. They'll alternately absorb
neutrons and decay until they hit a fissionable isotope, and
enter the fission product problem set. This is especially true
of everybody's favorite scare item, plutonium.
Fission products are the super-hot stuff, and they are
relatively short-lived. In a few hundred years, there is less
total radioactivity in the fission products than there was in
the ore that was mined to make the fuel that created that part
of the waste.
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
This is the real problem with fracking, the fact that so much gas is
wasted and released into the air instead of being recovered. For
the oil companies this is a waste of money, for local residents
it is a safety hazard, and for all of us it is a big contributor
to global warming. Methane is much worse per unit volume than CO2
release.
But this is a technical issue that likely can be solved. The problem
is that the companies currently making money from the fracking process
don't really have any incentive to solve it.
And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
This is the real problem with fracking, the fact that so much gas is
wasted and released into the air instead of being recovered. For
the oil companies this is a waste of money, for local residents
it is a safety hazard, and for all of us it is a big contributor
to global warming. Methane is much worse per unit volume than CO2
release.
But this is a technical issue that likely can be solved. The problem
is that the companies currently making money from the fracking process
don't really have any incentive to solve it.
--scott
The problem is that they're making money from it by externalising a vast >amount of their costs to, well, everyone else. Charge them a true rate
for environmental cleanup and suddenly the problem is solved.
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not >>>global supply of U.
Yes, that's what I said.
The global supply of U is enough for many
thousands of years.
That's pure speculation. There is a shitload of U
dispersed throughout the ocean. But at 3ppb, the cost of
"mining" it is far more than would be economically feasible.
The uranium is out there. That is NOT "pure speculation". Yes, I
agree it is not currently economic to get at the uranium in the ocean.
The current cost is 10 times the cost of mined uranium or lower; do
you claim that that cost won't go down?
? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven >>>reserves?
You are conflating me with Lynn - I never anything about proving
oil-death either way.
But you did state that the 1970's oil estimates were accurate.
You are basing all this on the assumption that there are 1000 years
of U reserves (yes, 2.8ppb throughout the crust).
Note you're off by a factor of 1000 here (ppm not ppb),
changes much.
than 1000 years.
They also say that 90 years is a higher level of assurance than is
available for most minerals. They then say that some folks view the
supply of uranium as the Achilles heel of nuclear power but then they
go on at great length to say why this is wrong and lacks "empirical
support".
Why on earth would anybody spend large sums of money to find new
reserves of uranium when we have a 90 year supply already?
The cost of uranium is a small part of the cost of a nuclear plant.
Exactly what "speculation" of mine do you disagree with? That
1. There is a lot of uranium out there?
2. That the costs of technology like seawater extraction will go down?
3. That the costs of uranium are a small part of the cost of a nuclear
plant and have room to rise substantially if the capital costs go down?
4. That there will be much greater reserves discovered when it is
financially worth-while looking for more?
On 2/7/2024 8:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are experiencing population crashes and birth rates have been declining world-wide for many years now.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate >>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
over budget!).
So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't >>>> any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and
there
from the 1960s).
Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, but, >>>> of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in
quantities
sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements,
but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry >>> picked by me from here
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is: >>>
"The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.
Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?
and 270
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go >>> for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
On 2/7/2024 2:44 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/7/2024 9:56 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/6/2024 10:48 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
As I've noted before, the simplest way to get something done is to >>>>>> show a 1%-er how he can make money doing it. He has both the means and >>>>>> the motivation.
Plastics are made from natural gas and sea water. We have an unlimited >>>>> amount of each in the USA.
"unlimited" is hyperbole.
Not in this case. We have 200 years of proven reserves of natural gas
in the USA.
Cite? Economically recoverable? At what environmental cost?
We have over 1,000 years of unproven reserves of natural gas in the US
Cite? At what recovery cost and what annual usage rate? And who
has provided the 'estimate'? EIA or industry?
The only problem is adding pipelines, treating
facilities, and compressors to get the natural gas to markets. The
wonders of fracking.
Ah, which goes back to cost.
And of course, the inevitable massive leakage that your industry
cannot seem to contain - Texas being amongst the larger emitters.
Of course, you seem to be of the minority opinion that atmospheric
CH4 and CO2 emissions from combustion aren't a problem and don't
affect global temperatures.
Do your own research and prove to me that I am wrong. Just remember one thing, I work in crude oil and natural gas daily from the long term planning viewpoint.
On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate >>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion
over budget!).
Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
some time before the present day?
No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
inevitiable.
Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the planet.
I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to make more of what we need.
In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. I wonder what it will be next decade.
https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
Lynn
Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one cherry
picked by me from here
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) is:
"The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating
rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either go
for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium.
Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in
the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years
the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption).
We also must keep in mind that endless "peak oil" predictions that always
fail.
Actually, we hit peak oil a few years ago.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2562/us-crude-oil-production-historical-chart
And that's thanks to fracking, which just extends the end-date by a
decade or two.
If the market judges that new uranium shall be mined, they will.
Where will they find the uranium? And at what cost?
So nuclear is the only sustainable way forward, especially coupled with
increase research efforts.
No, a mix of sources (wind, solar, pumped storage, nuclear, hydro) all working together will provide energy security. No single source will.
But there limits to all of them, solar included.
You really must read Dr Murphy's textbook, "Energy and Human ambitions
on a finite Planet". https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
It's very accessible and the first chapter is a good, laymans introduction
to the physical and chemical concepts involved in energy production.
It discusses all potential sources of energy, their advantages and their limitations. From a physics standpoint.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate >>>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion >>>>> over budget!).
Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
some time before the present day?
No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
inevitiable.
Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are
continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
planet. I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out
how to make more of what we need.
In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052.
I wonder what it will be next decade.
https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
Lynn
Lynn! =)
Best regards,
Daniel
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do inYou are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are experiencing
the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years >>> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily
a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption). >>>
population crashes and birth rates have been declining world-wide for many >> years now.
Let me add the anecdote that Hans Rosling of gapminder fame (in the EU >atleast, doubt anyone in US has heard about him) has theorized that the >population of earth will reach an equilibrium at around 12 billion.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will
always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate >>>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power
production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors,
look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion >>>>> over budget!).
Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
some time before the present day?
No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
inevitiable.
Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are
continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the planet. >> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to make more
of what we need.
In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. I
wonder what it will be next decade.
https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
Lynn
Lynn! =)
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
You really must read Dr Murphy's textbook, "Energy and Human ambitions
on a finite Planet". https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
It's very accessible and the first chapter is a good, laymans introduction >> to the physical and chemical concepts involved in energy production.
Thank you. I will make a note of it, but I won't promise to read it
tonight.
On 2/8/2024 12:10 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels per
day. That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.
The current
USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly >$45/bbl (Exxon). Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more
than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.
Lynn
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Your "90 years of U (Uranium)" is 90 years of *proven reserves*, not >>>>global supply of U.
Yes, that's what I said.
The global supply of U is enough for many
thousands of years.
That's pure speculation. There is a shitload of U
dispersed throughout the ocean. But at 3ppb, the cost of
"mining" it is far more than would be economically feasible.
The uranium is out there. That is NOT "pure speculation". Yes, I
agree it is not currently economic to get at the uranium in the ocean.
The current cost is 10 times the cost of mined uranium or lower; do
you claim that that cost won't go down?
? Why is predicting oil-death based upon proven oil
reserves wrong, but it's fine to predict U-death based on proven >>>>reserves?
You are conflating me with Lynn - I never anything about proving
oil-death either way.
But you did state that the 1970's oil estimates were accurate.
No, I did not. I never addressed 1970's oil estimates at all.
I was discussing Uranium, not oil.
You are basing all this on the assumption that there are 1000 years
of U reserves (yes, 2.8ppb throughout the crust).
Note you're off by a factor of 1000 here (ppm not ppb),
Yes. Typo.
not that it
changes much.
Indeed.
The uranium exists; seawater by itself is many times more
than 1000 years.
Assuming it can be economnically mined. and subsequently enriched.
How can I possibly keep up when you keep on snipping the parts of
They also say that 90 years is a higher level of assurance than is >>available for most minerals. They then say that some folks view the
supply of uranium as the Achilles heel of nuclear power but then they
go on at great length to say why this is wrong and lacks "empirical >>support".
Why on earth would anybody spend large sums of money to find new
reserves of uranium when we have a 90 year supply already?
Because the topic was replacing fossil fuels with U before they
run out. Do try to keep up.
The cost of uranium is a small part of the cost of a nuclear plant.
As I noted previously.
Exactly what "speculation" of mine do you disagree with? That
1. There is a lot of uranium out there?
I quibble about economic extraction in useful quantities.
2. That the costs of technology like seawater extraction will go down?
Maybe, but I consider it unlikely to matter in this context.
3. That the costs of uranium are a small part of the cost of a nuclear
plant and have room to rise substantially if the capital costs go down?
I didn't address this one way or the other. The cost of the physical
plant is irrelevent if you don't have fissile 235U (absent breeders).
Looking at the costs for Vogtle units 3 and 4, I'm not sanguine
about the changes for future builds.
4. That there will be much greater reserves discovered when it is
financially worth-while looking for more?
Wishful thinking, if you qualify it with 'economically retrieveable'.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong. I'm not sanguine about the probability thereof.
On 2/7/2024 8:00 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Mike Van Pelt <usenet@mikevanpelt.com> writes:
And something needs to be done about the waste situation, particularly
if the fleet is to be expanded substantially.
Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
On 2/8/2024 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will >>>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be >>>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until >>>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a
separate
discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power >>>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new >>>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a >>>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors, >>>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was
17$billion
over budget!).
Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
some time before the present day?
No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
inevitiable.
Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are >>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the
planet.
I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to
make more
of what we need.
In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to
2052. I
wonder what it will be next decade.
https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
Lynn
Lynn! =)
He may not appreciate that remark.
I am used to it. And Lynn is not my first name.
Lynn
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will >>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until
one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate >>>>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power >>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors, >>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion >>>>>> over budget!).
Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
some time before the present day?
No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
inevitiable.
Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are
continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the planet. >>> I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to make more
of what we need.
In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. I >>> wonder what it will be next decade.
https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
Lynn
Lynn! =)
He may not appreciate that remark.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
Again, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in >>>> the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years >>>> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily >>>> a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to furtherYou are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are experiencing >>> population crashes and birth rates have been declining world-wide for many >>> years now.
wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption). >>>>
Let me add the anecdote that Hans Rosling of gapminder fame (in the EU
atleast, doubt anyone in US has heard about him) has theorized that the
population of earth will reach an equilibrium at around 12 billion.
That's an increase of 50% from today. With a corresponding increase
in global energy consumption. Good luck with that. The horseman
will likely ride first, if they haven't already started....
On 2024-02-08, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
You really must read Dr Murphy's textbook, "Energy and Human ambitions
on a finite Planet". https://escholarship.org/uc/energy_ambitions
It's very accessible and the first chapter is a good, laymans introduction >>> to the physical and chemical concepts involved in energy production.
Thank you. I will make a note of it, but I won't promise to read it
tonight.
It's not clear it's worth it. Murphy is a doom predictor of the same ilk
as the Club of Rome in the 60s or the oil doom-sayers of the 70s.
From a review in the American Journal of Physics. https://pubs.aip.org/aapt/ajp/article/89/9/897/593796/Energy-and-Human-Ambitions-on-a-Finite-Planet
The book's structural awkwardness may be a side effect of the
author's main agenda: convincing the reader that humanity's future
is in great peril. On the spectrum that runs from technological
optimists to Malthusian pessimists, Murphy lies near the
Malthusian extreme.
...
He advises his readers to learn to grow their own food, choose a
career that doesn't depend too much on technology, take up
backpacking as a way to “toughen up” for a “less cushy” lifestyle,
and consider the “toll on our planet” of choosing to have
children.
Murphy ignores evidence and arguments that don't advance his central
thesis. At least he did that in chapter 15 on nuclear fission (the
only one I read) with his arguments on the scarcity of uranium. No
reputable scientist in the area would now base anything on "proven
reserves". Even in the 70s oil estimates, most scientists knew much
better; it was just the popular press that considered proven reserves
instead of global resource supply. See for example "Oil Forecasts,
Past and Present" in https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1260/014459802321615108
On 2/8/2024 11:40 AM, D wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 2/7/2024 8:08 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:You are apparently unaware that many parts of the planet are experiencing >>> population crashes and birth rates have been declining world-wide for many >>> years now.
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will >>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload
production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal.
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be
confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until >>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of
reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a separate >>>>>> discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power >>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new
reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a
few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors, >>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was 17$billion >>>>>> over budget!).
So, Thorium is abundant in the crust, you say. Sure, but there aren't
any thorium reactors in operation (aside a research reactor here and >>>>>> there
from the 1960s).
Then you might note that there is massive amounts of U in seawater, >>>>>> but,
of course it is highly dilute - what is the cost of 'mining' it in >>>>>> quantities
sufficient to provide fuel for 20,000 1GW reactors?
Conservation is the most viable path to reducing fuel requirements, >>>>>> but that doesn't help much if the world population doubles every
70 years. Exponential growth is bad.
Taking a brief look there seems to be plenty of predictions... one
cherry
picked by me from here
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Optimistic_predictions) >>>>> is:
"The OECD estimates that with the world nuclear electricity generating >>>>> rates of 2002, with LWR, once-through fuel cycle, there are enough
conventional resources to last 85 years using known resources
That 85 years assumes the current reactor fleet of 440 reactors.
Add 10,000 more and what happens to that 85 year 'estimate'?
and 270
years using known and as yet undiscovered resources.
Undiscovered. Wishful thinking is not a path to energy sufficiency.
Let's assume the lower estimate of 85 years, that's _plenty_ to either >>>>> goAgain, that 85 years assumes the current fleet size. What do we do in >>>> the mean time? Assuming past population growth rates, in that 85 years >>>> the worlds population would double to 15 billion or so (not necesarily >>>> a valid assumption as resource conflicts will likely lead to further
for Thorium or build more efficient reactor which can reuse old uranium. >>>>
wars, thus reducing population and the concommittant energy consumption). >>>>
Let me add the anecdote that Hans Rosling of gapminder fame (in the EU
atleast, doubt anyone in US has heard about him) has theorized that the
population of earth will reach an equilibrium at around 12 billion.
That would have implications on the argument above.
12B is definitely at the high end of estimates.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#/media/File:World_Population_Prospects.svg
the median estimate is closer to 10B, and I suspect it will be less.
Do your own research and prove to me that I am wrong. Just remember one >>> thing, I work in crude oil and natural gas daily from the long term
planning viewpoint.
Lynn, you are a hero! How does one start to work in the oil industry? My
Chevron shares have been very kind to me the last couple of years! =)
I did some free work for Chevron a couple of years ago. When I started asking for payment, they shut the project down. Turns out they were using me
to beat on their current software supplier who could not get the job done. Typical.
I have been working in the crude oil and natural gas business since 1975, I was 15. I was writing software for my father way back then.
Lynn
He then goes on to a discussion about breeder reactors, which can burn
the 238U without the expensive (and hazardous) enrichment processes
required to concentrate 235U. (238U + N = 239U. 23 minutes later, 239U - >> B = 239Np,
2.4 days later, 239Np - B = 239Pu).
The downsides of course are proliferation risks.
And something needs to be done about the waste situation, particularly
if the fleet is to be expanded substantially.
Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
Lynn
The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels per
day. That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.
cite? Wikipedia says 44 billion bbl. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
Worldometer states:
"The United States has proven reserves equivalent to
4.9 times its annual consumption. This means that, without
imports, there would be about 5 years of oil left (at current
consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).
EIA (US Energy Information Agency) concur, at 41 billion bbl.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm
And as you say, expensive.
The current
USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly
$45/bbl (Exxon). Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more
than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.
Let's look at economics. There will be several sources of additional reserves, but let's just consider seawater extraction for now.
Going backwards, suppose we allow the total cost of nuclear energy to increase increase by 10% due completely to the cost of uranium
increasing. How much did uranium go up?
Roughly speaking, the ratio of amortized capital costs vs operating costs
for nuclear is about 9 to 1 (depends *strongly* on interest rates). A 10% overall increase means that operating costs doubled. According to the calculations in economic citation I gave earlier, for the best US plants
a 10-fold increase will double the operating cost. Stating it going forwards (which I probably should have done in the first place but I'm not going
to rewrite), if uranium prices increase by a factor of 10, overall cost per kWh of nuclear energy will go up by 10%.
Thus seawater extraction of uranium is already in the ballpark of cost effectiveness if we allow the cost of nuclear power to increase by
10%. And that assumes the capital costs of nuclear power remain
constant. Given the massive expansion of the scenario (thousands of
plants), the capital costs should diminish dramatically; the overall
cost should diminish. And any improvement in seawater extraction
efficiency (point 2 above) will definitely have a direct impact on overall cost.
How can I possibly keep up when you keep on snipping the parts of
my responses that are relevant!
So we're not quite yet in the ballpark of seawater extraction being >economical with only a modest raise in energy price; the price would
would have to double. But the overall point remains: there will be
plenty of uranium out there when we need it. Energy prices are going
to increase and the cost of seawater extraction will decrease.
Availability of uranium is not a worry.
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
So we're not quite yet in the ballpark of seawater extraction being >>economical with only a modest raise in energy price; the price would
would have to double. But the overall point remains: there will be
plenty of uranium out there when we need it. Energy prices are going
to increase and the cost of seawater extraction will decrease.
Availability of uranium is not a worry.
You are still not accounting for the enrichment costs. 99+% of
the U extracted from seawater is non-fissile, so it needs to
be enriched to 235U (or used in a breader).
Nor have you addressed the costs associated with building
nuclear plants and disposing of the concomittent waste.
I still classify it as wishful thinking at this time.
Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, I'm not holding my breath that there will be a substantial reactor
fleet by 2050 (and some of the existing fleet will be decomissioned
by then - they do have a lifetime in the 60 year range due to
the effects of constant radiation exposure).
As for Chris' summary of the Energy and Human Ambitions textbook,
realize that summary isn't universally shared. Read the entire
textbook yourself and come to a conclusion based on the physics
and facts - don't rely on some anonymous poster to summarize it
for you. Yes, it is not all is sunshine, but then that describes
the real world.
On 2/9/2024 4:32 AM, D wrote:
On Thu, 8 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/8/2024 11:14 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/7/2024 9:57 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:This summarizes my position as well. You are a very intelligent woman >>>>> Lynn! =)
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> writes:
On 06/02/2024 19:34, Scott Lurndal wrote:
As much as I favor it, nuclear fission electricity production will >>>>>>>>> always be niche, perhaps a significant portion of the baseload >>>>>>>>> production, but nowhere near enough to displace CH4 and Coal. >>>>>>>>>
Given the 90-year known fissionable uranium supply, one might be >>>>>>>>> confident that it's a viable alternative to fossil fuels. Until >>>>>>>>> one realizes that 90-year estimate is for the existing fleet of >>>>>>>>> reactors (many of which are nearing end-of-life, but that's a >>>>>>>>> separate
discussion). To expand nuclear to displace fossil fuels for power >>>>>>>>> production would require in the vicinity of 20 or 30 thousand new >>>>>>>>> reactors, where that 90-year supply quickly disappears in just a >>>>>>>>> few years. (not to mention the costs of building 20k 1GW reactors, >>>>>>>>> look at vogtle for how much a current build costs - it was
17$billion
over budget!).
Is this perhaps in the same way that "known"
oil reserves in the 1970s were drained dry
some time before the present day?
No. And without fracking, the prediction from the
70's would pretty accurate. Fracking just delays the
inevitiable.
Always with the negative thoughts ! You and the other Peak Oilers are >>>>>> continuously predicting the running out of natural resources on the >>>>>> planet.
I believe in the continuous ability of mankind to figure out how to >>>>>> make more
of what we need.
In my lifetime, the estimate of Peak Oil has moved from 1972 to 2052. >>>>>> I
wonder what it will be next decade.
https://infinity-renewables.com/162-2/
Lynn
He may not appreciate that remark.
I am used to it. And Lynn is not my first name.
Lynn
I apologize. I only blame not being a native english speaker and ignorance. >> =(
No worries !
Lynn
On 2/8/2024 4:38 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/8/2024 12:10 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels per >>> day. That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.
cite? Wikipedia says 44 billion bbl.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
Worldometer states:
"The United States has proven reserves equivalent to
4.9 times its annual consumption. This means that, without
imports, there would be about 5 years of oil left (at current
consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).
EIA (US Energy Information Agency) concur, at 41 billion bbl.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm
And as you say, expensive.
The current
USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly
$45/bbl (Exxon). Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more
than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.
Lynn
As mentioned before, I work in the crude oil and natural gas industry. With 30+ years of going to engineering conferences, you hear a lot more than the government puts out. The amount of crude oil and natural gas in the USA is just amazing since directional drilling started in the 1990s and fracking starting in 2008.
However, with so much crude oil and natural gas coming out of so few sources (Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, etc), this has had profound effect on the oil and gas business in the USA. There used to be 15 million of us employed in the oil and gas sector, there is now 11 million and it is still dropping. There used to be 250+ refineries in the USA in 1980 and that has dropped to 90 now.
Back in 2007, when the natural gas companies were getting ready to build coal to natural gas conversion plants, the demand for my software jumped like crazy as the price of natural gas jumped from $3/mmbtu to $14/mmbtu in 2008. And the price of crude oil jumped from $40/bbl to $130/bbl. Today those prices are $2/mmbtu and $75/bbl respectively. The demand for my software has dropped considerably.
Three years ago, 70% of the natural gas only wells in the USA were closed off. Now it is 50% are closed off. More pipelines are being built but most of the new demand is coming from the 22 new LNG plants on the Gulf Coast. Another 23+ LNG plants are being built (at $12 billion each !) but nobody knows if they will all be finished.
Lynn
On 2024-02-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
So we're not quite yet in the ballpark of seawater extraction being >>>economical with only a modest raise in energy price; the price would >>>would have to double. But the overall point remains: there will be >>>plenty of uranium out there when we need it. Energy prices are going
to increase and the cost of seawater extraction will decrease. >>>Availability of uranium is not a worry.
You are still not accounting for the enrichment costs. 99+% of
the U extracted from seawater is non-fissile, so it needs to
be enriched to 235U (or used in a breader).
Agreed. But mined uranium is not enriched either. Please give your >calculations showing the added costs for enriched seawater uranium
make it economically infeasible in the future.
Nor have you addressed the costs associated with building
nuclear plants and disposing of the concomittent waste.
Agreed. But that's not and never has been the topic at hand. The only
issue here is your ridiculous claim that lack of uranium will keep nuclear >fission from being an answer.
Note that unlike you and Murphy, who envision scenarios where nuclear
fission is required to replace *all* fossil fuels by itself (your
multiple thousands of reactors that use up all proven resources in 4
years), I expect the answer will be a combination of technologies with >nuclear fission playing a very important part.
Are you really questioning the credentials of the review in the
American Journal of Physics???
I'll end with another quote from the quite negative American Journal
of Physics review:
We do tremendous harm if we mislead students into believing that
physical constraints will require large parts of the world to
return to a pre-industrial state of deep poverty and high child
mortality.
On 2024-02-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
Note that unlike you and Murphy, who envision scenarios where nuclear
fission is required to replace *all* fossil fuels by itself
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
So we're not quite yet in the ballpark of seawater extraction being >>>>economical with only a modest raise in energy price; the price would >>>>would have to double. But the overall point remains: there will be >>>>plenty of uranium out there when we need it. Energy prices are going
to increase and the cost of seawater extraction will decrease. >>>>Availability of uranium is not a worry.
You are still not accounting for the enrichment costs. 99+% of
the U extracted from seawater is non-fissile, so it needs to
be enriched to 235U (or used in a breader).
Agreed. But mined uranium is not enriched either. Please give your >>calculations showing the added costs for enriched seawater uranium
make it economically infeasible in the future.
Nor have you addressed the costs associated with building
nuclear plants and disposing of the concomittent waste.
Agreed. But that's not and never has been the topic at hand. The only
issue here is your ridiculous claim that lack of uranium will keep nuclear >>fission from being an answer.
Again, you put words in my mouth. I've always said that nuclear
will play a role in the answer. I continue to believe that it cannot
be the sole answer and that renewables must play play a large role.
Note that unlike you and Murphy, who envision scenarios where nuclear >>fission is required to replace *all* fossil fuels by itself (your
multiple thousands of reactors that use up all proven resources in 4 >>years), I expect the answer will be a combination of technologies with >>nuclear fission playing a very important part.
That's what I've said at least a half dozen times in this thread,
maybe quibbling over the word 'very'.
Are you really questioning the credentials of the review in the
American Journal of Physics???
Did you offer the cite so I can judge the article myself?
I'll end with another quote from the quite negative American Journal
of Physics review:
We do tremendous harm if we mislead students into believing that
physical constraints will require large parts of the world to
return to a pre-industrial state of deep poverty and high child
mortality.
I've certainly never said anything like that, nor has Dr. Murphy.
Parts of the world are in a state of deep poverty and high child
mortality today, and growing worse.
But vague promises of unlimited energy in the future don't convince me.
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-09, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
Note that unlike you and Murphy, who envision scenarios where nuclear >>fission is required to replace *all* fossil fuels by itself
Murphy took many scenarious to the point of absurdity (and said
so) to make a point, including this one.
I did find that review, by Daniel V. Schroeder that
you have referred to.
So, Schroeder writes;
"The book's structural awkwardness may be a side effect
of the author's main agenda: convincing the reader that humanity's
future is in great peril."
He's putting words in the author's mouth. Murphy does point out
the absurdity of the growth of energy consumption continuing as it
has in the past, it's physically unsurvivable.
He also points out that the sources of energy currently available
to us are insufficent to support such growth.
Schroeders opinion is strong, but IMO just opinion. He does
like overall that the physics in the textbook is strong
if a bit above the typical undergrad level in areas.
I stand by my suggestion that one should read the textbook
and draw ones own conclusions rather than relying on the
opinion of a book reviewer.
And I was certainly able to determine how a combination of
technologies could supply sustainable power from the textbook
even if Schroeder was unable to do so.
So, support your assertion that there is boundless supply
of usable fission fuel that can, in a relatively short
time, replace fossil fuels world-wide (when oil runs out,
and it will run out, it will be too late).
How many years from today before the first reactors come
on-line? Financing? Politics?
Would it not be better to invest in solar, wind and storage?
Vogtle units 3 and 4 has cost $35 billion. So far.
It's easy to state that's because of regulations, etc. et. al.
So, please suggest exactly which regulations can be eliminated
to streamline the build process and significantly reduce the cost.
Not vague statements like "less regulation", be specific. Which
regulations are unnecessary? Which regulations lead to the
cost overruns? What's the impact of eliminating the regulation?
On 2/9/2024 3:53 PM, D wrote:
On Fri, 9 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/8/2024 4:38 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 2/8/2024 12:10 AM, Chris Buckley wrote:
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-07, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
The USA has 100+ years of proven oil reserves at 10+ million barrels per >>>>> day. That is roughly 365,000,000,000 barrels of crude oil.
cite? Wikipedia says 44 billion bbl.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves_in_the_United_States
Worldometer states:
"The United States has proven reserves equivalent to
4.9 times its annual consumption. This means that, without
imports, there would be about 5 years of oil left (at current >>>> consumption levels and excluding unproven reserves).
EIA (US Energy Information Agency) concur, at 41 billion bbl.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_pres_dcu_NUS_a.htm
And as you say, expensive.
The current
USA production rate is 13+ million barrels per day at a cost of roughly >>>>> $45/bbl (Exxon). Much of those proven oil reserves will cost much more >>>>> than $100/bbl to produce due to their remoteness.
Lynn
As mentioned before, I work in the crude oil and natural gas industry.
With 30+ years of going to engineering conferences, you hear a lot more >>> than the government puts out. The amount of crude oil and natural gas in >>> the USA is just amazing since directional drilling started in the 1990s >>> and fracking starting in 2008.
However, with so much crude oil and natural gas coming out of so few
sources (Eagle Ford, Permian Basin, etc), this has had profound effect on >>> the oil and gas business in the USA. There used to be 15 million of us >>> employed in the oil and gas sector, there is now 11 million and it is
still dropping. There used to be 250+ refineries in the USA in 1980 and >>> that has dropped to 90 now.
Back in 2007, when the natural gas companies were getting ready to build >>> coal to natural gas conversion plants, the demand for my software jumped >>> like crazy as the price of natural gas jumped from $3/mmbtu to $14/mmbtu >>> in 2008. And the price of crude oil jumped from $40/bbl to $130/bbl. Today >>> those prices are $2/mmbtu and $75/bbl respectively. The demand for my >>> software has dropped considerably.
Three years ago, 70% of the natural gas only wells in the USA were closed >>> off. Now it is 50% are closed off. More pipelines are being built but >>> most of the new demand is coming from the 22 new LNG plants on the Gulf >>> Coast. Another 23+ LNG plants are being built (at $12 billion each !) but >>> nobody knows if they will all be finished.
Lynn
From an investment point of view, what do you say about US oil companies >> the next 5 to 10 years?
Best regards,
Daniel
There will be continued consolidation of energy companies in the USA. The USA
is quite unique in that it has both extensive natural resources and multiple energy companies. Most other countries with natural resources only have one national energy company.
Crude oil wells will continue to be drilled in the USA but natural gas only wells will not be drilled or produced. Note that several small wildcatters are redrilling old natural gas only wells from the 1980s and 1990s, fracking them, and getting mixed crude oil and natural gas out of them for a 50% increase in production cost. We call that a win.
Conversion of the coal baseload power plants in the USA to natural gas gas turbines peakers will continue in the USA as electricity demands are growing with the population growth in the South and other areas across the USA. More
and more electrical baseload is being covered by Solar Power Plants and Wind Turbines, especially in Texas and other Southern states. Battery power plants are being built rapidly also but, they only store power with a 10% loss, they do not generate power.
Would I invest in Exxon and Chevron ? I am invested in those companies but nothing compared to my investments in real estate, Netflix, and Amazon.
Lynn
On 2/9/2024 4:35 AM, D wrote:
...
Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
Lynn
I often thought about this, and of course one question that does pop up
is...
How would an exploding rocket full of nuclear waste affect our
environment if it explodes within our atmosphere?
At the risk of becoming a bit "sci fi" here, I could easily imagine
however, if we had rail gun launch systems or even more "sci fi" space
elevators, that this could become much more feasible and more safe than
putting the stuff in a rocket and throwing it in the sun.
Best regards, Daniel
I actually started writing a short story once about nuclear waste hauler space ships throwing nuclear waste into the Sun. The haulers were specially built with water ringed centers for crew protections during solar storms.
The problem is that the solar storms are becoming more frequent.
Lynn
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:35 AM, D wrote:
...
Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
Lynn
I often thought about this, and of course one question that does pop up
is...
How would an exploding rocket full of nuclear waste affect our
environment if it explodes within our atmosphere?
At the risk of becoming a bit "sci fi" here, I could easily imagine
however, if we had rail gun launch systems or even more "sci fi" space
elevators, that this could become much more feasible and more safe than
putting the stuff in a rocket and throwing it in the sun.
Best regards, Daniel
I actually started writing a short story once about nuclear waste hauler
space ships throwing nuclear waste into the Sun. The haulers were specially >> built with water ringed centers for crew protections during solar storms.
The problem is that the solar storms are becoming more frequent.
Lynn
I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible
until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets.
It seems like there are some early stage startups here and there working
on it, and I wonder how many years before one of them succeeds?
That would surely revolutionize nuclear waste management.
I wonder if lowering the cost of launching something to space with a
facetor of 10 or 100 will make it possible for other sci fi concepts to >finally become true, such as space-based solar power, beaming electricity >back to earth?
On 10/02/2024 21:31, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:35 AM, D wrote:
...
Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
Lynn
I often thought about this, and of course one question that does pop up
is...
How would an exploding rocket full of nuclear waste affect our
environment if it explodes within our atmosphere?
At the risk of becoming a bit "sci fi" here, I could easily imagine
however, if we had rail gun launch systems or even more "sci fi" space
elevators, that this could become much more feasible and more safe than
putting the stuff in a rocket and throwing it in the sun.
Best regards, Daniel
I actually started writing a short story once about nuclear waste hauler
space ships throwing nuclear waste into the Sun. The haulers were
specially built with water ringed centers for crew protections during
solar storms. The problem is that the solar storms are becoming more
frequent.
Lynn
This sounds like an allegory of terrestrial
climate change. Is the message that the
nuclear power industry is ruining the Sun?
So it's back to oil and coal, then, eh?
Can someone remind me which one of E.E. Smith's
futurologial fictions has Earth importing
its fossil fuels from extra-solar planets?
I hope it's only one.
On 10/02/2024 21:31, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/9/2024 4:35 AM, D wrote:
...
Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
Lynn
I often thought about this, and of course one question that does pop up
is...
How would an exploding rocket full of nuclear waste affect our
environment if it explodes within our atmosphere?
At the risk of becoming a bit "sci fi" here, I could easily imagine
however, if we had rail gun launch systems or even more "sci fi" space
elevators, that this could become much more feasible and more safe than
putting the stuff in a rocket and throwing it in the sun.
Best regards, Daniel
I actually started writing a short story once about nuclear waste hauler space ships throwing nuclear waste into the Sun. The haulers were specially built with water ringed centers for crew protections during
solar storms. The problem is that the solar storms are becoming more frequent.
Lynn
This sounds like an allegory of terrestrial
climate change. Is the message that the
nuclear power industry is ruining the Sun?
So it's back to oil and coal, then, eh?
Can someone remind me which one of E.E. Smith's
futurologial fictions has Earth importing
its fossil fuels from extra-solar planets?
I hope it's only one.
There really needs to be a gender identifying version of Lynn, such as
Frances/Francis.
If I didn't already suggest announcing
one's pronouns, then I do so now,
waiting to hear perhaps Lynn's head
exploding (he, him).
"The Chinese demographics are a total horror show, with Shanghai
university recently publishing an article to the effect of "Urban birth
rate of .5" or less, because "China." Russia is on race to the bottom
with them. I Remember Peter Zeihan (demographer among other things)
saying that with the current data China would be at 645 million or less
by 2050. NOT 2100. Fastest aging society in history. With lowest birth
rate (worse than during the Holocaust) and worse than during the Black
death. And absolute Enron numbers on their economy. And 1 child policy,
now 2, now 3, now Please have kids you peasants! The demographics chart
for China looks like a lopsided mushroom cloud. CCP admitted to over 100 >million people dont exist, mostly women under 40. (The ones who have all
the kids) over 30 million more men than women. Which is so much worse
than it sounds."
On 2/6/2024 11:25 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 08:51:01 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
Part of why Canada can do without nukes is that a Canadian is in command >>> of NORAD 50% of the time.
Is it really 50% of the time? I know a Canadian was in command on 9/11
and was greatly praised by Dubya for his fast action in closing US
skies after the first collision with one of the Twin Towers
It has been some years since I checked and when I did the information I >remember finding was that the NORAD CO rotates between an American and a >Canadian every year. BUT checking again just now that was apparently
wrong. The CO is always an American and the Deputy CO is always a
Canadian. My apologies for the error.
The essential problem for the Chinese is that the lowest birthrates
are amongst their industrial population while their highest are among
the agricultural population - and they have a serious problem with the >standard of education outside their big cities. So even if every rural >"peasant" woman had 5 kids it wouldn't begin to solve their
demographic problems.
If there really were that many more men than women then there would be
a major push to encourage them to travel in search of foreign brides.
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 15:38:16 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"The Chinese demographics are a total horror show, with Shanghai
university recently publishing an article to the effect of "Urban birth
rate of .5" or less, because "China." Russia is on race to the bottom
with them. I Remember Peter Zeihan (demographer among other things)
saying that with the current data China would be at 645 million or less
by 2050. NOT 2100. Fastest aging society in history. With lowest birth
rate (worse than during the Holocaust) and worse than during the Black
death. And absolute Enron numbers on their economy. And 1 child policy,
now 2, now 3, now Please have kids you peasants! The demographics chart
for China looks like a lopsided mushroom cloud. CCP admitted to over 100
million people dont exist, mostly women under 40. (The ones who have all
the kids) over 30 million more men than women. Which is so much worse
than it sounds."
The essential problem for the Chinese is that the lowest birthrates
are amongst their industrial population while their highest are among
the agricultural population - and they have a serious problem with the standard of education outside their big cities. So even if every rural "peasant" woman had 5 kids it wouldn't begin to solve their
demographic problems.
If there really were that many more men than women then there would be
a major push to encourage them to travel in search of foreign brides.
I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible
until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible >>until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets.
It takes far less energy to "shoot nuclear waste" into deep space.
To hit the sun requires massive amounts of fuel to slow the orbital
speed of the rocket, or very long trips using multiple gravity assists
around the inner planets to slow the rocket.
Throwing "nuclear waste" into the sun is a non-starter.
Then, you must consider the mass of the waste - it consists of
heavy elements and there is a considerable amount of it. We're
talking thousands of rocket launches. Just one launch
failure could contaminate large areas of the planet. Are you
willing to take that risk?
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 15:38:16 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"The Chinese demographics are a total horror show, with Shanghai >>university recently publishing an article to the effect of "Urban birth >>rate of .5" or less, because "China." Russia is on race to the bottom
with them. I Remember Peter Zeihan (demographer among other things)
saying that with the current data China would be at 645 million or less
by 2050. NOT 2100. Fastest aging society in history. With lowest birth >>rate (worse than during the Holocaust) and worse than during the Black >>death. And absolute Enron numbers on their economy. And 1 child policy, >>now 2, now 3, now Please have kids you peasants! The demographics chart >>for China looks like a lopsided mushroom cloud. CCP admitted to over 100 >>million people dont exist, mostly women under 40. (The ones who have all >>the kids) over 30 million more men than women. Which is so much worse
than it sounds."
The essential problem for the Chinese is that the lowest birthrates
are amongst their industrial population while their highest are among
the agricultural population - and they have a serious problem with the >standard of education outside their big cities. So even if every rural >"peasant" woman had 5 kids it wouldn't begin to solve their
demographic problems.
If there really were that many more men than women then there would be
a major push to encourage them to travel in search of foreign brides.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 15:38:16 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"The Chinese demographics are a total horror show, with Shanghai
university recently publishing an article to the effect of "Urban birth
rate of .5" or less, because "China." Russia is on race to the bottom
with them. I Remember Peter Zeihan (demographer among other things)
saying that with the current data China would be at 645 million or less
by 2050. NOT 2100. Fastest aging society in history. With lowest birth
rate (worse than during the Holocaust) and worse than during the Black
death. And absolute Enron numbers on their economy. And 1 child policy,
now 2, now 3, now Please have kids you peasants! The demographics chart
for China looks like a lopsided mushroom cloud. CCP admitted to over 100 >>> million people dont exist, mostly women under 40. (The ones who have all >>> the kids) over 30 million more men than women. Which is so much worse
than it sounds."
The essential problem for the Chinese is that the lowest birthrates
are amongst their industrial population while their highest are among
the agricultural population - and they have a serious problem with the
standard of education outside their big cities. So even if every rural
"peasant" woman had 5 kids it wouldn't begin to solve their
demographic problems.
If there really were that many more men than women then there would be
a major push to encourage them to travel in search of foreign brides.
I've heard from people I know who are good friends with russians, that the >living conditions outside the biggest russian cities are medieval in >quality, especially the country side.
I wonder if the same goes for china?
The big cities are show cases for the world, and outside them, medieval >conditions reign.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible >until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets.
It takes far less energy to "shoot nuclear waste" into deep space.
To hit the sun requires massive amounts of fuel to slow the orbital
speed of the rocket, or very long trips using multiple gravity assists
around the inner planets to slow the rocket.
On 2/12/2024 11:27 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 10:11:31 +0100, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024, The Horny Goat wrote:
On Wed, 7 Feb 2024 15:38:16 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
"The Chinese demographics are a total horror show, with Shanghai
university recently publishing an article to the effect of "Urban birth >>>>> rate of .5" or less, because "China." Russia is on race to the bottom >>>>> with them. I Remember Peter Zeihan (demographer among other things)
saying that with the current data China would be at 645 million or less >>>>> by 2050. NOT 2100. Fastest aging society in history. With lowest birth >>>>> rate (worse than during the Holocaust) and worse than during the Black >>>>> death. And absolute Enron numbers on their economy. And 1 child policy, >>>>> now 2, now 3, now Please have kids you peasants! The demographics chart >>>>> for China looks like a lopsided mushroom cloud. CCP admitted to over 100 >>>>> million people dont exist, mostly women under 40. (The ones who have all >>>>> the kids) over 30 million more men than women. Which is so much worse >>>>> than it sounds."
The essential problem for the Chinese is that the lowest birthrates
are amongst their industrial population while their highest are among
the agricultural population - and they have a serious problem with the >>>> standard of education outside their big cities. So even if every rural >>>> "peasant" woman had 5 kids it wouldn't begin to solve their
demographic problems.
If there really were that many more men than women then there would be >>>> a major push to encourage them to travel in search of foreign brides.
I've heard from people I know who are good friends with russians, that the >>> living conditions outside the biggest russian cities are medieval in
quality, especially the country side.
I wonder if the same goes for china?
The big cities are show cases for the world, and outside them, medieval
conditions reign.
"Medieval" might be a stretch. Even in Russia.
Something much older might well be the case.
About 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/02/indoor-plumbing-still-a-pipe-dream-for-20-of-russian-households-reports-say-a65049
vs 0.1% to 0.5% in the US, depending who you believe.
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible >>>until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets.
It takes far less energy to "shoot nuclear waste" into deep space.
To hit the sun requires massive amounts of fuel to slow the orbital
speed of the rocket, or very long trips using multiple gravity assists
around the inner planets to slow the rocket.
Throwing "nuclear waste" into the sun is a non-starter.
Then, you must consider the mass of the waste - it consists of
heavy elements and there is a considerable amount of it. We're
talking thousands of rocket launches. Just one launch
failure could contaminate large areas of the planet. Are you
willing to take that risk?
Yes, I agree that the danger is large. It's already difficult
politically to launch nuclear powered spacecraft where the dangerous
amounts are much smaller.
If we ever accumulate much nuclear waste in orbit or on the moon,it may
be less dangerous to shoot it into the sun than let it stay around.
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible >>>>until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets.
It takes far less energy to "shoot nuclear waste" into deep space.
To hit the sun requires massive amounts of fuel to slow the orbital
speed of the rocket, or very long trips using multiple gravity assists
around the inner planets to slow the rocket.
Throwing "nuclear waste" into the sun is a non-starter.
Then, you must consider the mass of the waste - it consists of
heavy elements and there is a considerable amount of it. We're
talking thousands of rocket launches. Just one launch
failure could contaminate large areas of the planet. Are you
willing to take that risk?
Yes, I agree that the danger is large. It's already difficult
politically to launch nuclear powered spacecraft where the dangerous >>amounts are much smaller.
If we ever accumulate much nuclear waste in orbit or on the moon,it may
be less dangerous to shoot it into the sun than let it stay around.
Surely you meant "shoot it into deep space"? What if it turns out
to be potentially useful in 200 years? (even today, some can be
reprocessed into useful fuel).
I'd park it in the orbital plane of the asteroid belt.
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible >>>>>until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets. >>>>It takes far less energy to "shoot nuclear waste" into deep space.
To hit the sun requires massive amounts of fuel to slow the orbital
speed of the rocket, or very long trips using multiple gravity assists >>>> around the inner planets to slow the rocket.
Throwing "nuclear waste" into the sun is a non-starter.
Then, you must consider the mass of the waste - it consists of
heavy elements and there is a considerable amount of it. We're
talking thousands of rocket launches. Just one launch
failure could contaminate large areas of the planet. Are you
willing to take that risk?
Yes, I agree that the danger is large. It's already difficult >>>politically to launch nuclear powered spacecraft where the dangerous >>>amounts are much smaller.
If we ever accumulate much nuclear waste in orbit or on the moon,it may >>>be less dangerous to shoot it into the sun than let it stay around.
Surely you meant "shoot it into deep space"? What if it turns out
to be potentially useful in 200 years? (even today, some can be
reprocessed into useful fuel).
I'd park it in the orbital plane of the asteroid belt.
No. There are two types of danger here to avoid.
The first is the direct danger of the nuclear material. Deep space
is fine for that and the benefits are as you say.
The second is that nefarious parties could take control of the
material.
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible >>>>>>until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets. >>>>>It takes far less energy to "shoot nuclear waste" into deep space.
To hit the sun requires massive amounts of fuel to slow the orbital
speed of the rocket, or very long trips using multiple gravity assists >>>>> around the inner planets to slow the rocket.
Throwing "nuclear waste" into the sun is a non-starter.
Then, you must consider the mass of the waste - it consists of
heavy elements and there is a considerable amount of it. We're
talking thousands of rocket launches. Just one launch
failure could contaminate large areas of the planet. Are you
willing to take that risk?
Yes, I agree that the danger is large. It's already difficult >>>>politically to launch nuclear powered spacecraft where the dangerous >>>>amounts are much smaller.
If we ever accumulate much nuclear waste in orbit or on the moon,it may >>>>be less dangerous to shoot it into the sun than let it stay around.
Surely you meant "shoot it into deep space"? What if it turns out
to be potentially useful in 200 years? (even today, some can be
reprocessed into useful fuel).
I'd park it in the orbital plane of the asteroid belt.
No. There are two types of danger here to avoid.
The first is the direct danger of the nuclear material. Deep space
is fine for that and the benefits are as you say.
The second is that nefarious parties could take control of the
material.
A bit of a stretch, perhaps. If someone has the wherewithal to
get to the the asteroid belt (or interstellar space, if that's
where you decide to send it) they probably don't need the waste
stocks to cause trouble.
But, point noted.
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be feasible >>>>>>>until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on rockets. >>>>>>It takes far less energy to "shoot nuclear waste" into deep space. >>>>>>
To hit the sun requires massive amounts of fuel to slow the orbital >>>>>> speed of the rocket, or very long trips using multiple gravity assists >>>>>> around the inner planets to slow the rocket.
Throwing "nuclear waste" into the sun is a non-starter.
Then, you must consider the mass of the waste - it consists of
heavy elements and there is a considerable amount of it. We're
talking thousands of rocket launches. Just one launch
failure could contaminate large areas of the planet. Are you
willing to take that risk?
Yes, I agree that the danger is large. It's already difficult >>>>>politically to launch nuclear powered spacecraft where the dangerous >>>>>amounts are much smaller.
If we ever accumulate much nuclear waste in orbit or on the moon,it may >>>>>be less dangerous to shoot it into the sun than let it stay around.
Surely you meant "shoot it into deep space"? What if it turns out
to be potentially useful in 200 years? (even today, some can be
reprocessed into useful fuel).
I'd park it in the orbital plane of the asteroid belt.
No. There are two types of danger here to avoid.
The first is the direct danger of the nuclear material. Deep space
is fine for that and the benefits are as you say.
The second is that nefarious parties could take control of the
material.
A bit of a stretch, perhaps. If someone has the wherewithal to
get to the the asteroid belt (or interstellar space, if that's
where you decide to send it) they probably don't need the waste
stocks to cause trouble.
But, point noted.
Somewhat a stretch. It occurrs to me now that terrestrial governments
not wanting to give such a weapon to outer-space populations may be more
of a reason to fire the dangers into the sun.
I really don't know what society will be like in, say, 150 years. As >technology increases, the availability of civilization-affecting
catastrophes increases. Society is going to have to have to have
some mechanisms for controlling those dangers; I don't know what they
will be. I fear I won't like many of those mechanisms!
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:snip
About 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/02/indoor-plumbing-still-a-pipe-dream-for-20-of-russian-households-reports-say-a65049
vs 0.1% to 0.5% in the US, depending who you believe.
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian
refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where missing
from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent back
to their home villages in russia.
Best regards,
Daniel
On 13/02/24 08:35, D wrote:
snip
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
About 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets.
9% of Urban households.
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/04/02/indoor-plumbing-still-a-pipe-dream-for-20-of-russian-households-reports-say-a65049
vs 0.1% to 0.5% in the US, depending who you believe.
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian
refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where missing
from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent back
to their home villages in russia.
Best regards,
Daniel
Next time you are drunk, ask her if they took the plumbing and piping as well.
Again, you put words in my mouth. I've always said that nuclear
will play a role in the answer. I continue to believe that it cannot
be the sole answer and that renewables must play play a large role.
On 2/8/2024 9:36 AM, James Nicoll wrote:
It's a self-limiting problem, though. Once climate change begins
to significantly affect agriculture, the human population should
decline and with it demand. In the long run, no more serious than
the effects of the Siberian traps.
Yup, only 70-90% of life dies, and only a few million years to recover.
Also, if Donald Trump becomes the next President, the
proliferation of nuclear weapons to Canada, Australia, and
most especially Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania
and Poland doesn't actually sound like a bad thing to me.
Instead, it sounds like a *necessity* to maintain the stability
of the current global situation. Pity Ukraine did not have a
full-scale strategic nuclear deterrent; the current conflict
there would simply never have happened, and it would have
remained as peacefully independent of Russia as, say, France
currently is.
John Savard
Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their
soil when they became free
On 2/13/2024 4:46 AM, Quadibloc wrote:[7 to 12 years]
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:33:29 AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote: >>
I perceive that your "natural gas"
is fossil reserves of methane.
Which is worse to let into the
atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
on a human lifespan scale.
This applies to cow farts.
When people dig natural gas out of
the ground, it is done with the intent
of burning it, producing some
carbon dioxide, and some water
vapor. While most hydrocarbons
have about half as many carbon atoms
as hydrogen atoms, the ratio in the case
of methane is one carbon atom to four
hydrogen atoms.
Of course, methane production and use
is not absolutely without a small percentage
of leakage, but that doesn't automatically
make natural gas worse than other
hydrocarbons.
John Savard
Natural gas is typically 90+% methane. Methane is 40% hydrogen by
weight. The conversion equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O.
Methane in the atmosphere naturally converts to CO2 and H2O within ten
years.
On 2024-02-13, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their
soil when they became free
It's a bit more complicated, but basically Ukraine received security assurances, including from Russia, for giving up the Soviet nuclear
weapons it had inherited on its territory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
On 2024-02-13, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their
soil when they became free
It's a bit more complicated, but basically Ukraine received security >assurances, including from Russia, for giving up the Soviet nuclear
weapons it had inherited on its territory. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
On Wednesday, February 7, 2024 at 3:33:29?AM UTC-7, Robert Carnegie wrote:
I perceive that your "natural gas"
is fossil reserves of methane.
Which is worse to let into the
atmosphere than carbon dioxide is,
on a human lifespan scale.
This applies to cow farts.
When people dig natural gas out of
the ground, it is done with the intent
of burning it, producing some
carbon dioxide, and some water
vapor. While most hydrocarbons
have about half as many carbon atoms
as hydrogen atoms, the ratio in the case
of methane is one carbon atom to four
hydrogen atoms.
Of course, methane production and use
is not absolutely without a small percentage
of leakage, but that doesn't automatically
make natural gas worse than other
hydrocarbons.
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 00:10:02 +0000, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Again, you put words in my mouth. I've always said that nuclear
will play a role in the answer. I continue to believe that it cannot
be the sole answer and that renewables must play play a large role.
And that is quite a reasonable position. However, when I look
at the rate at which we are currently addressing global warming,
I think we have to do *much* better.
And if nuclear plays a much larger role, one that dwarfs renewables
like wind and solar (but not hydroelectric), _then_ the current
major political objection (the visible one, not hidden ones like >environmentalists having a hidden agenda and conservatives
being shills for the oil companies) vanishes - that renewables
won't supply the vast amounts of energy (felt to be?) required
for the desired level of economic activity, and the heavy
industry needed for national defense.
So presumably it ought to be possible to find the right conservatives
to make support for adequately addressing global warming
bipartisan.
On 2/7/2024 6:33 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
really care about the environment, and aren't just using
it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.
What 'other agenda' are you proposing?
Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, ...
Some people have checked around fracking and other natural gas
extraction areas and found much higher leakage levels than the
industry claims.
If those figures are accurate then it puts natural gas at about the
same level of greenhouse emissions as coal generators for produced
energy
I think it's something that needs independent, reputable investigation
rather than depending on the industry or environment groups figures
but it's a concern.
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
About 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets.
9% of Urban households.
As the United States *already has* nuclear weapons, there is
no risk of nuclear proliferation if the United States gets its
electricity from breeder reactors.
On 14/02/2024 03:39, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <ewsxN.78098$Sf59.8@fx48.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, ...
It didn't used to take that long to build a nuclear power
plant, and the laws of physics have not changed.
What we have once accomplished in the past, we can
aspire to do in the future.
I think we don't want to have more
nuclear power stations built the old way.
And "the old way" probably runs up to about
last year.
I'm speaking in general, not particularly.
But there are conspicuous examples of "oops".
Natural gas is typically 90+% methane. Methane is 40% hydrogen by
weight. The conversion equation is CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2H2O.
Methane in the atmosphere naturally converts to CO2 and H2O within ten
years.
On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 8:40:49=E2=80=AFPM UTC-7, Scott Dorsey wro= >te:
It's alarming enough that the US government has nuclear weapons. I am muc= >h=20
more worried about Google, Wells Fargo, AT&T, or MS13 having them.
In that case, panic! Because General Electric already has them!
As worded, I'd expect that /exclusive/
access to an /outhouse/ with plumbing
counts. Though now I'm anxious about
washing of hands.
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
As worded, I'd expect that /exclusive/
access to an /outhouse/ with plumbing
counts. Though now I'm anxious about
washing of hands.
You really don't want an outhouse with plumbing in a cold climate where
it freezes.
If there really were that many more men than women then there would be
a major push to encourage them to travel in search of foreign brides.
On 2/13/2024 10:32 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <uq35b6$22opb$2@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 6:33 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
really care about the environment, and aren't just using
it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.
What 'other agenda' are you proposing?
Being anti-nuclear makes no sense now that we have
anthropic climate change to worry about. I suspect
that at least some of the Green's anti-nuke stance
is a hangover from before when ACC was a major worry.
In article <uqeof0$1ud4r$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >>On 13/02/24 08:35, D wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
About 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets.
9% of Urban households.
To be honest, the second fact is far more alarming than the first. The >county adjacent to mine here in Virginia has something like 200 homes
with outdoor toilets but... living without a flush toilet in a city has
got to be a horror.
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2024 03:39, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <ewsxN.78098$Sf59.8@fx48.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, ...
It didn't used to take that long to build a nuclear power
plant, and the laws of physics have not changed.
What we have once accomplished in the past, we can
aspire to do in the future.
I think we don't want to have more
nuclear power stations built the old way.
And "the old way" probably runs up to about
last year.
I'm speaking in general, not particularly.
But there are conspicuous examples of "oops".
Much of the problem to my mind is that these plants are being designed by >civil engineers.... aero engineers think very differently about risks...
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:56:15 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/2024 10:32 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <uq35b6$22opb$2@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 6:33 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
really care about the environment, and aren't just using
it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.
What 'other agenda' are you proposing?
Being anti-nuclear makes no sense now that we have
anthropic climate change to worry about. I suspect
that at least some of the Green's anti-nuke stance
is a hangover from before when ACC was a major worry.
More likely it stemmed from the Comintern, to try to get nuclear
weapons out of Europe so Europe could be conquered.
Note that your "at least some" applies here.
I have no idea what "ACC" refers to. Bing shows a sports organization
and an instution of higher learning, neither of which seem likely.
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:40:50 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber ><naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2024-02-13, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their >>> soil when they became free
It's a bit more complicated, but basically Ukraine received security >>assurances, including from Russia, for giving up the Soviet nuclear
weapons it had inherited on its territory. >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
and they've almost been worth the paper they're printed on...
On 12/02/2024 23:19, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/12/2024 4:20 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:
Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> writes:
On 2024-02-12, Scott Lurndal <scott@slp53.sl.home> wrote:Surely you meant "shoot it into deep space"? What if it turns out >>>>>>> to be potentially useful in 200 years? (even today, some can be >>>>>>> reprocessed into useful fuel).
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
I think shooting nuclear waste into the sun probably won't be >>>>>>>>>> feasible
until we have some form of launch system that does not rely on >>>>>>>>>> rockets.
It takes far less energy to "shoot nuclear waste" into deep space. >>>>>>>>>
To hit the sun requires massive amounts of fuel to slow the orbital >>>>>>>>> speed of the rocket, or very long trips using multiple gravity >>>>>>>>> assists
around the inner planets to slow the rocket.
Throwing "nuclear waste" into the sun is a non-starter.
Then, you must consider the mass of the waste - it consists of >>>>>>>>> heavy elements and there is a considerable amount of it. We're >>>>>>>>> talking thousands of rocket launches. Just one launch
failure could contaminate large areas of the planet. Are you >>>>>>>>> willing to take that risk?
Yes, I agree that the danger is large. It's already difficult >>>>>>>> politically to launch nuclear powered spacecraft where the dangerous >>>>>>>> amounts are much smaller.
If we ever accumulate much nuclear waste in orbit or on the
moon,it may
be less dangerous to shoot it into the sun than let it stay around. >>>>>>>
I'd park it in the orbital plane of the asteroid belt.
No. There are two types of danger here to avoid.
The first is the direct danger of the nuclear material. Deep space >>>>>> is fine for that and the benefits are as you say.
The second is that nefarious parties could take control of the
material.
A bit of a stretch, perhaps. If someone has the wherewithal to
get to the the asteroid belt (or interstellar space, if that's
where you decide to send it) they probably don't need the waste
stocks to cause trouble.
But, point noted.
Somewhat a stretch. It occurrs to me now that terrestrial governments >>>> not wanting to give such a weapon to outer-space populations may be more >>>> of a reason to fire the dangers into the sun.
Elon Musk aside, 'outer-space populations' are also a bit of a stretch,
and it's likely that any outer-space population will have a high
technology level. It doesn't require transuranics to nudge an asteroid
into an earth-interesecting orbit.
I really don't know what society will be like in, say, 150 years. As
technology increases, the availability of civilization-affecting
catastrophes increases. Society is going to have to have to have
some mechanisms for controlling those dangers; I don't know what they
will be. I fear I won't like many of those mechanisms!
Resource conflicts are already underway....
The first documented resource conflict happened over 6,000 years between
Cain and Able. Who knows how many resource conflicts happened before
that ?
Abel. I think the message of that story
is, "When it comes to sacrificing property
to God, priests prefer meat. Also,
if your sacrifice pleases God, you may
still get killed. Don't come crying to us
if you do."
I think I recall another story where
the availability of good fruit to eat
seemed to be a concern.
I also recall an interpretation that meat
eating was prohibited until Noah's time,
so why was Abel raising livestock anyway?
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian
refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where
missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent
back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
And by the murderous iniquitous
aggression, of course.
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian
refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where
missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent
back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point nor the underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army
discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
And by the murderous iniquitous
aggression, of course.
Most refugees leaving Ukraine would be doing so to avoid conscription.
Is that form of slavery what you mean by "murderous iniquitous aggression"?
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
--8323328-1183054958-1707947330=:4785
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed >Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
Most refugees leaving Ukraine would be doing so to avoid conscription.
Is that form of slavery what you mean by "murderous iniquitous aggression= >"?
Incorrect. Most refugees who leave are ukrainian women, children, elderly,= >=20
sick and others who are allowed to leave.
Are you pro Putin? You sound very pro Putin to me.
On 2/13/2024 9:46 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <uq3fp6$24lb7$2@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
Realizing that this comment might have been intended
to be somewhat flippant...
The energy requirement to throw something into the Sun
is considerably higher than to eject it from the Solar
System entirely. Orbital mechanics be weird. Or, at
least, non-intuitive.
Nope, entirely serious. Many SF books and movies have stuff thrown into
the Sun or the local star. It should be a downhill trip once you
achieve LEO.
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point nor the >underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army
discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
This is true; however, I see no reason to believe that the United States
is not capable of providing adequate security to shipments of nuclear
materials for its power plants.
But what if the U.S. decides, for radiological
safety, to build its nuclear power plants
in Canada?
And what about the rest of the world's need
for energy production?
IIRC, the people actually doing the work at one such plant reported
having to mark the really important switches with pull-tabs because
the people-in-charge wanted to see nice clean control boards with all >switches looking exactly the same.
The bigger problem with outhouses here in Texas is yellow jackets and >copperheads. Both seem attracted to the rich, earthy smells. A
detailed look above and in the pit is needful before just sitting down.
I am fairly happy when the outhouse has real toilet paper. Leaves and
grass really suck.
On 2/14/2024 4:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian
refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me that in >>>>>> her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where
missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent >>>>>> back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets >>>> is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point nor the >>>> underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army
discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
I have seen toilets in houses without common sewage, so that does not
mean that you cannot use them.
Indeed, I live in such a house, as do most folk out in the country.
What do you think a septic tank is for?
pt
Me too. Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic
systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office
building and warehouse. Both are a total pain in the butt and expensive
to maintain. But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in the
house like I had last year.
On 2/14/2024 4:45 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/13/2024 9:46 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <uq3fp6$24lb7$2@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
Throw the unreclaimable nuclear waste into the Sun.
Realizing that this comment might have been intended
to be somewhat flippant...
The energy requirement to throw something into the Sun
is considerably higher than to eject it from the Solar
System entirely. Orbital mechanics be weird. Or, at
least, non-intuitive.
Nope, entirely serious. Many SF books and movies have stuff thrown
into the Sun or the local star. It should be a downhill trip once you
achieve LEO.
No, you also have to kill the orbital velocity of the Earth -
that's another 67,000 mph, on top of the 17,500 mph just to get to LEO.
That take a LOT of fuel.
Believe it or not, 'SF books and movies' rarely get orbital
mechanics right.
On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 10:03:08?AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote:
From context, I'd guess "Anthropological Climate Change"
Anthropogenic, please. It isn't the fault of people like Franz Boas.
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
The bigger problem with outhouses here in Texas is yellow jackets and >>copperheads. Both seem attracted to the rich, earthy smells. A
detailed look above and in the pit is needful before just sitting down.
This is why they are called "pit vipers," yes.
On 2/14/2024 11:49 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 08:56:15 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/13/2024 10:32 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <uq35b6$22opb$2@dont-email.me>,
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/7/2024 6:33 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
Assuming, of course, that the "environmental hysterics"
really care about the environment, and aren't just using
it as a ploy for an entirely other agenda.
What 'other agenda' are you proposing?
Being anti-nuclear makes no sense now that we have
anthropic climate change to worry about. I suspect
that at least some of the Green's anti-nuke stance
is a hangover from before when ACC was a major worry.
More likely it stemmed from the Comintern, to try to get nuclear
weapons out of Europe so Europe could be conquered.
Note that your "at least some" applies here.
I have no idea what "ACC" refers to. Bing shows a sports organization
and an instution of higher learning, neither of which seem likely.
Anthropic Climate Change, mentioned earlier in the paragraph.
There's a good deal of evidence that the German anti-nuclear
movement was funded and promoted by Russia, to hook them on
Russian natural gas.
On 2/14/2024 4:40 AM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 14/02/2024 03:35, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article <uqeof0$1ud4r$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G
<noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
On 13/02/24 08:35, D wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
About 20% of Russian households do not have flush toilets.
9% of Urban households.
To be honest, the second fact is far more alarming than the first. The
county adjacent to mine here in Virginia has something like 200 homes
with outdoor toilets but... living without a flush toilet in a city has
got to be a horror.
Some people speak well of the earth closet,
but I don't know if Russia has those instead.
Also, if the statistic is sourced, and
is reasonably current i.e. later than
say 1990, I'd also want to know whether
/access/ to an indoor toilet counts.
Such as in a boarding-house.
As worded, I'd expect that /exclusive/
access to an /outhouse/ with plumbing
counts. Though now I'm anxious about
washing of hands.
I have never seen an outhouse with plumbing in Texas, Montana, Japan, >Europe, or Alaska.
The bigger problem with outhouses here in Texas is yellow jackets and >copperheads. Both seem attracted to the rich, earthy smells. A
detailed look above and in the pit is needful before just sitting down.
I am fairly happy when the outhouse has real toilet paper. Leaves and
grass really suck.
My former USMC son reports that camel spiders are a serious problem in >outhouses in the middle east. The bites are quite serious.--
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:39:16 -0800, The Horny Goat wrote:
If there really were that many more men than women then there would be
a major push to encourage them to travel in search of foreign brides.
This would assume China is considerably wealthier than it actually
is on a per capita basis, I would think.
On 2/14/2024 11:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On 14 Feb 2024 14:11:36 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 14/02/2024 03:39, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <ewsxN.78098$Sf59.8@fx48.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, ... >>>>>It didn't used to take that long to build a nuclear power
plant, and the laws of physics have not changed.
What we have once accomplished in the past, we can
aspire to do in the future.
I think we don't want to have more
nuclear power stations built the old way.
And "the old way" probably runs up to about
last year.
I'm speaking in general, not particularly.
But there are conspicuous examples of "oops".
Much of the problem to my mind is that these plants are being designed by >>> civil engineers.... aero engineers think very differently about risks...
Being run by MBAs may not be helping very much either.
IIRC, the people actually doing the work at one such plant reported
having to mark the really important switches with pull-tabs because
the people-in-charge wanted to see nice clean control boards with all
switches looking exactly the same.
ITYM Beer Taps????
The "pull-tab" meant here is the "built-in device used to open a
beverage can" Bing brings up. The can can be said to have been
"popped" when opened. The "beverage" could, of course, be beer.
On 2/15/2024 10:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:10:18 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
On Wednesday, February 14, 2024 at 10:03:08?AM UTC-7, Scott Lurndal wrote: >>>
From context, I'd guess "Anthropological Climate Change"
Anthropogenic, please. It isn't the fault of people like Franz Boas.
But does he know the difference?
Just a brain fart. I do know the difference.
D <nospam@example.net> writes:
This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,
while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.
Please configure your usenet client to _NOT_ send MIME
format posts. This is a text medium.
--8323328-1183054958-1707947330=:4785
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
Most refugees leaving Ukraine would be doing so to avoid conscription.
Is that form of slavery what you mean by "murderous iniquitous aggression= >> "?
Incorrect. Most refugees who leave are ukrainian women, children, elderly,= >> =20
sick and others who are allowed to leave.
Are you pro Putin? You sound very pro Putin to me.
I believe Titus is a kiwi, and not a mainstream kiwi.
I was thinking of the highly differentiated and decorative tops
placed on beer taps in a bar. I've seen photos of (I think) the
3 Mile Island control room where they were on a number of critical
controls to make it harder to grab the wrong one by accident.
The term seems to be 'beer tap handle': >https://www.bradfordsauction.com/auction-lot/7pc-lot-of-domestic-craft-import-beer-tap-handle_4804023AAA
On 14 Feb 2024 22:41:42 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
The bigger problem with outhouses here in Texas is yellow jackets and=20 >>>copperheads. Both seem attracted to the rich, earthy smells. A=20 >>>detailed look above and in the pit is needful before just sitting down.
This is why they are called "pit vipers," yes.
Ah. Humor. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_viper>
On 2/14/2024 6:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian >>>>>>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me
that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where >>>>>>> missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent >>>>>>> back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush
toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point nor the >>>>> underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army
discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
I have seen toilets in houses without common sewage, so that does not
mean that you cannot use them.
Indeed, I live in such a house, as do most folk out in the country.
What do you think a septic tank is for?
pt
Me too. Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic
systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office
building and warehouse. Both are a total pain in the butt and expensive
to maintain. But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in the
house like I had last year.
Lynn
Odd - mine is trouble free - every couple of years I get it pumped, but
thats it.
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 6:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian >>>>>>>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me >>>>>>>> that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where >>>>>>>> missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent >>>>>>>> back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush
toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point nor the >>>>>> underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army
discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
I have seen toilets in houses without common sewage, so that does not >>>>> mean that you cannot use them.
Indeed, I live in such a house, as do most folk out in the country.
What do you think a septic tank is for?
pt
Me too. Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic
systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office
building and warehouse. Both are a total pain in the butt and expensive >>> to maintain. But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in the >>> house like I had last year.
Lynn
Odd - mine is trouble free - every couple of years I get it pumped, but
thats it.
Anaerobic vs aerobic? We have the old-school tank and leach field anaerobic system (house was built in 1980). We've had it pumped twice in about 20 years,
no other maintenance. The aerobic systems with the sprinklers need a maintenance contract and inspection at least every six months (not to mention costing at least $20k as a replacement).
Robert
Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
Some people have checked around fracking and other natural gas
extraction areas and found much higher leakage levels than the
industry claims.
It is pretty clear that the leakage is very, very high. This is a bad
thing for the gas industry not only because it gets them terrible
publicity what with people's wells getting contaminated and flammable
gas coming out of their water taps, but ALSO because the gas industry
is in the business of selling gas. Gas that escapes into the atmosphere
is gas that cannot be sold.
Many beer manufacturers seem to put more money into fancy tap handles
than into making good beer.
--scott
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:25:59 +1100, Mad Hamish ><newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:40:50 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber >><naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2024-02-13, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their >>>> soil when they became free
It's a bit more complicated, but basically Ukraine received security >>>assurances, including from Russia, for giving up the Soviet nuclear >>>weapons it had inherited on its territory. >>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
and they've almost been worth the paper they're printed on...
The one with Russia, yes. But the USA and others helping the Ukraine
could be viewed as honoring them.
At least in the past. And in the future as well if the Republicans
ever wake up and decide to actually /do/ their jobs.
On 16/02/24 15:48, rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 6:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian >>>>>>>>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me >>>>>>>>> that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where >>>>>>>>> missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent >>>>>>>>> back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush >>>>>>> toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point nor the >>>>>>> underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army >>>>>>> discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
I have seen toilets in houses without common sewage, so that does not >>>>>> mean that you cannot use them.
Indeed, I live in such a house, as do most folk out in the country.
What do you think a septic tank is for?
pt
To return to my original sceptic question, I now ask D if all the septic tanks were stolen as well as well as the plumbing, toilets and piping?
Me too. Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic
systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office
building and warehouse. Both are a total pain in the butt and expensive >>>> to maintain. But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in the >>>> house like I had last year.
Lynn
Even if it was only a small village, with, say 1,000 properties, how
many army trucks would be needed to transport these tanks with
associated piping, plumbing and toilets?
Odd - mine is trouble free - every couple of years I get it pumped, but
thats it.
Anaerobic vs aerobic? We have the old-school tank and leach field anaerobic >> system (house was built in 1980). We've had it pumped twice in about 20 years,
no other maintenance. The aerobic systems with the sprinklers need a
maintenance contract and inspection at least every six months (not to mention
costing at least $20k as a replacement).
Robert
Obviously the best economic solution would be to install a stolen flush toilet over the long drop and spend the savings on vodka.
On 14 Feb 2024 03:54:14 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Mad Hamish <newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
Some people have checked around fracking and other natural gas
extraction areas and found much higher leakage levels than the
industry claims.
It is pretty clear that the leakage is very, very high. This is a bad
thing for the gas industry not only because it gets them terrible
publicity what with people's wells getting contaminated and flammable
gas coming out of their water taps, but ALSO because the gas industry
is in the business of selling gas. Gas that escapes into the atmosphere
is gas that cannot be sold.
That's not really an issue for them.
Losing say, 5% of gas to the atmosphere doesn't really increase the
cost of producing a volumen of gas in the short term
Yeah, over the lifetime of a project it changes things a bit but not a
huge amount
The cost of reducing the losses would probably be pretty high
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
To return to my original sceptic question, I now ask D if all the septic
tanks were stolen as well as well as the plumbing, toilets and piping?
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
To return to my original sceptic question, I now ask D if all the septic >>> tanks were stolen as well as well as the plumbing, toilets and piping?
Oh no! It's a cryptic septic skeptic!
--scott
On 2/14/2024 6:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian >>>>>>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me
that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where >>>>>>> missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent >>>>>>> back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush
toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point nor the >>>>> underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army
discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
I have seen toilets in houses without common sewage, so that does not >>>> mean that you cannot use them.
Indeed, I live in such a house, as do most folk out in the country.
What do you think a septic tank is for?
pt
Me too. Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic
systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office
building and warehouse. Both are a total pain in the butt and expensive
to maintain. But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in the
house like I had last year.
Lynn
Odd - mine is trouble free - every couple of years I get it pumped, but
thats it.
I'd be curious of the distribution of households without plumbed
toilets. Probably some poor areas and on
Indian reservations. I know that up in Fairbanks, Alaska, a lot
of houses are 'dry', since in winter its too cold to use a septic
system or get running water. I don't know how they manage.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 16/02/24 15:48, rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 6:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian >>>>>>>>>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me >>>>>>>>>> that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where >>>>>>>>>> missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent >>>>>>>>>> back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush >>>>>>>> toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point nor the
underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army >>>>>>>> discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
I have seen toilets in houses without common sewage, so that does not >>>>>>> mean that you cannot use them.
Indeed, I live in such a house, as do most folk out in the country. >>>>>> What do you think a septic tank is for?
pt
To return to my original sceptic question, I now ask D if all the septic
tanks were stolen as well as well as the plumbing, toilets and piping?
See previous km of conversation about different systems. I recommend
reading about various non-water systems, and last, but not least, ask you
to consider that there is value in the porcelain throne construction as
well if all you ever had was a hole in the ground.
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 09:10:05 -0800, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 10:25:59 +1100, Mad Hamish >><newsunspammelaws@iinet.unspamme.net.au> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:40:50 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber >>><naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2024-02-13, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their >>>>> soil when they became free
It's a bit more complicated, but basically Ukraine received security >>>>assurances, including from Russia, for giving up the Soviet nuclear >>>>weapons it had inherited on its territory. >>>>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
and they've almost been worth the paper they're printed on...
The one with Russia, yes. But the USA and others helping the Ukraine
could be viewed as honoring them.
I don't know how accurate the wikipedia summation of the artilcles is
I'd kind of hope there was more involved than "o.k. if you're invaded
we'll give you some technology" but it really looks like there wasn't
even a commitment to even do that
the only commitment looks to be to raise it with the Security Council
where any action would be vetoed by one of the countries involved in
it (let's face it, it'd be Russia or a puppet state of theirs invading
unles it was the USA)
also from the wikipedia article
'MacFarlane, a professor of international relations, "It gives
signatories justification if they take action, but it does not force
anyone to act in Ukraine."[51] In the US, neither the George H. W.
Bush administration nor the Clinton administration was prepared to
give a military commitment to Ukraine, and they did not believe the US
Senate would ratify an international treaty and so the memorandum was
adopted in more limited terms.[52] The memorandum has a requirement of >consultation among the parties "in the event a situation arises that
raises a question concerning the ... commitments" set out in the >memorandum.[53] Whether or not the memorandum sets out legal
obligations, the difficulties that Ukraine has encountered since early
2014 may cast doubt on the credibility of future security assurances
that are offered in exchange for nonproliferation commitments.[54] >Regardless, the United States publicly maintains that "the Memorandum
is not legally binding", calling it a "political commitment".'
--
At least in the past. And in the future as well if the Republicans
ever wake up and decide to actually /do/ their jobs.
On 2/15/2024 11:33 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 17:51:50 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 11:58 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
On 14 Feb 2024 14:11:36 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:Being run by MBAs may not be helping very much either.
On 14/02/2024 03:39, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
In article <ewsxN.78098$Sf59.8@fx48.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <slp53@pacbell.net> wrote:
Given the current decade+ and $$$$$$ it takes to build a plant, ... >>>>>>>It didn't used to take that long to build a nuclear power
plant, and the laws of physics have not changed.
What we have once accomplished in the past, we can
aspire to do in the future.
I think we don't want to have more
nuclear power stations built the old way.
And "the old way" probably runs up to about
last year.
I'm speaking in general, not particularly.
But there are conspicuous examples of "oops".
Much of the problem to my mind is that these plants are being designed by >>>>> civil engineers.... aero engineers think very differently about risks... >>>>
IIRC, the people actually doing the work at one such plant reported
having to mark the really important switches with pull-tabs because
the people-in-charge wanted to see nice clean control boards with all
switches looking exactly the same.
ITYM Beer Taps????
A "beer tap" is a "tap" used for beer. A "tap" is a valve used to get
a fluid out of a barrel. Or maple syrup out of a maple tree.
The "pull-tab" meant here is the "built-in device used to open a
beverage can" Bing brings up. The can can be said to have been
"popped" when opened. The "beverage" could, of course, be beer.
I was thinking of the highly differentiated and decorative tops
placed on beer taps in a bar. I've seen photos of (I think) the
3 Mile Island control room where they were on a number of critical
controls to make it harder to grab the wrong one by accident.
The term seems to be 'beer tap handle': >https://www.bradfordsauction.com/auction-lot/7pc-lot-of-domestic-craft-import-beer-tap-handle_4804023AAA
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:34:50 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
Me too.=A0 Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic=20
systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office=20
building and warehouse.=A0 Both are a total pain in the butt and = >expensive=20
to maintain.=A0 But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in = >the=20
house like I had last year.
=20
Lynn
Odd - mine is trouble free - every couple of years I get it pumped, but >>thats it.
I'd be curious of the distribution of households without plumbed
toilets. Probably some poor areas and on
Indian reservations. I know that up in Fairbanks, Alaska, a lot
of houses are 'dry', since in winter its too cold to use a septic
system or get running water. I don't know how they manage.
Snow melts.
And they have /lots/ of snow.
On 2/15/2024 9:48 PM, rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 6:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian >>>>>>>>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me >>>>>>>>> that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where >>>>>>>>> missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and sent >>>>>>>>> back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush >>>>>>> toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point nor the >>>>>>> underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army >>>>>>> discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
I have seen toilets in houses without common sewage, so that does not >>>>>> mean that you cannot use them.
Indeed, I live in such a house, as do most folk out in the country.
What do you think a septic tank is for?
pt
Me too. Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic
systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office
building and warehouse. Both are a total pain in the butt and expensive >>>> to maintain. But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in the >>>> house like I had last year.
Lynn
Odd - mine is trouble free - every couple of years I get it pumped, but
thats it.
Anaerobic vs aerobic? We have the old-school tank and leach field anaerobic >> system (house was built in 1980). We've had it pumped twice in about 20 years,
no other maintenance. The aerobic systems with the sprinklers need a
maintenance contract and inspection at least every six months (not to mention
costing at least $20k as a replacement).
I think its aerobic (that's how little attention I have to pay to it).
It is entirely passive - no pumps, and an underground leach field.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 16/02/24 15:48, rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 6:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian >>>>>>>>>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me >>>>>>>>>> that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where >>>>>>>>>> missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and >>>>>>>>>> sent
back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush >>>>>>>> toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point >>>>>>>> nor the
underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army >>>>>>>> discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
I have seen toilets in houses without common sewage, so that does >>>>>>> not
mean that you cannot use them.
Indeed, I live in such a house, as do most folk out in the country. >>>>>> What do you think a septic tank is for?
pt
To return to my original sceptic question, I now ask D if all the septic
tanks were stolen as well as well as the plumbing, toilets and piping?
See previous km of conversation about different systems. I recommend
reading about various non-water systems, and last, but not least, ask
you to consider that there is value in the porcelain throne construction
as well if all you ever had was a hole in the ground.
Last, but not least, we must consider the scenario where said loot could
be sold, as well as a general lack of knowledge about how the object in question is installed and part of a larger system.
I think I'll finish here, since your questions to me, seem very tedious.
If you do want to believe the russian soldiers are knights in shining
armour, coming from a a land of plenty and high technology, please go
ahead.
Me too. Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic
systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office
building and warehouse. Both are a total pain in the butt and
expensive
to maintain. But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in >>>>> the
house like I had last year.
Lynn
Even if it was only a small village, with, say 1,000 properties, how
many army trucks would be needed to transport these tanks with
associated piping, plumbing and toilets?
Odd - mine is trouble free - every couple of years I get it pumped, but >>>> thats it.
Anaerobic vs aerobic? We have the old-school tank and leach field
anaerobic
system (house was built in 1980). We've had it pumped twice in about
20 years,
no other maintenance. The aerobic systems with the sprinklers need a
maintenance contract and inspection at least every six months (not to
mention
costing at least $20k as a replacement).
Robert
Obviously the best economic solution would be to install a stolen flush
toilet over the long drop and spend the savings on vodka.
On 2/15/2024 11:26 PM, Titus G wrote:
On 16/02/24 15:48, rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 6:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian >>>>>>>>>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me >>>>>>>>>> that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where >>>>>>>>>> missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and >>>>>>>>>> sent
back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush >>>>>>>> toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point >>>>>>>> nor the
underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army >>>>>>>> discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
I have seen toilets in houses without common sewage, so that does >>>>>>> not
mean that you cannot use them.
Indeed, I live in such a house, as do most folk out in the country. >>>>>> What do you think a septic tank is for?
pt
To return to my original sceptic question, I now ask D if all the septic
tanks were stolen as well as well as the plumbing, toilets and piping?
Me too. Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic
systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office
building and warehouse. Both are a total pain in the butt and
expensive
to maintain. But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in >>>>> the
house like I had last year.
Lynn
Even if it was only a small village, with, say 1,000 properties, how
many army trucks would be needed to transport these tanks with
associated piping, plumbing and toilets?
Odd - mine is trouble free - every couple of years I get it pumped, but >>>> thats it.
Anaerobic vs aerobic? We have the old-school tank and leach field
anaerobic
system (house was built in 1980). We've had it pumped twice in about
20 years,
no other maintenance. The aerobic systems with the sprinklers need a
maintenance contract and inspection at least every six months (not to
mention
costing at least $20k as a replacement).
Robert
Obviously the best economic solution would be to install a stolen flush
toilet over the long drop and spend the savings on vodka.
This video shows Russian troops loading a toilet into a car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHeoe7jgDeo
On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:24:14?PM UTC-7, Titus G wrote:
Your original claim was that every toilet in the village was stolen and
trucked away. Do you really believe that?
Why not? If it was a large city, or if the claim was that this happened
to a great many villages, that would be hard to believe. But for something >co-ordinated to happen once, in a single village (maybe not all the houses >had flush toilets to begin with) is not that much of a stretch.
On 17/02/24 04:51, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/15/2024 11:26 PM, Titus G wrote:
On 16/02/24 15:48, rkshullat@rosettacondot.com wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/14/2024 6:03 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:46 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 2/14/2024 4:48 PM, D wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024, Titus G wrote:
On 15/02/24 00:13, Robert Carnegie wrote:
On 12/02/2024 19:35, D wrote:
I can add some anecdotal evidence here as well. I met a Ukrainian >>>>>>>>>>> refugee in my local bar a couple of months ago and she told me >>>>>>>>>>> that in
her home town, after the russians invaded, all the toilets where >>>>>>>>>>> missing from the houses.
The russian soldiers removed all of them, loaded on trucks and >>>>>>>>>>> sent
back to their home villages in russia.
I'm shocked by the loo-ting. :-)
The reason why about 20% of Russian households do not have flush >>>>>>>>> toilets
is that villages do not have a common sewerage collection point >>>>>>>>> nor the
underground piping to do so.
Stealing toilets would be illogical. Together with the great army >>>>>>>>> discipline, it smells strongly of naive bullshit.
I have seen toilets in houses without common sewage, so that does >>>>>>>> not
mean that you cannot use them.
Indeed, I live in such a house, as do most folk out in the country. >>>>>>> What do you think a septic tank is for?
pt
To return to my original sceptic question, I now ask D if all the septic >>> tanks were stolen as well as well as the plumbing, toilets and piping?
Me too. Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic
systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office >>>>>> building and warehouse. Both are a total pain in the butt and
expensive
to maintain. But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in >>>>>> the
house like I had last year.
Lynn
Even if it was only a small village, with, say 1,000 properties, how
many army trucks would be needed to transport these tanks with
associated piping, plumbing and toilets?
Odd - mine is trouble free - every couple of years I get it pumped, but >>>>> thats it.
Anaerobic vs aerobic? We have the old-school tank and leach field
anaerobic
system (house was built in 1980). We've had it pumped twice in about
20 years,
no other maintenance. The aerobic systems with the sprinklers need a
maintenance contract and inspection at least every six months (not to
mention
costing at least $20k as a replacement).
Robert
Obviously the best economic solution would be to install a stolen flush
toilet over the long drop and spend the savings on vodka.
This video shows Russian troops loading a toilet into a car:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHeoe7jgDeo
The video soon transitions to slapstick when the "soldier" trips
breaking the toilet. Do you really think that a video of three people
loading one toilet into a car boot is sufficient documentation to back
up the claim that every toilet from a village together with plumbing and >piping was loaded into army trucks and removed? I don't.
I didn't watch the whole video but was interested to hear that 40% of >Ukrainian households do not have a flush toilet compared to Russia's
20%. Amazing.
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:34:50 -0500, Cryptoengineer
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
=20
Me too.=A0 Both my house and my office building have aerobic septic=20 >>>> systems, 1,750 gallons for my house and 2,500 gallons for my office=20 >>>> building and warehouse.=A0 Both are a total pain in the butt and = >>expensive=20
to maintain.=A0 But, maintenance is much better than sewage backup in = >>the=20
house like I had last year.
=20
Lynn
Odd - mine is trouble free - every couple of years I get it pumped, but >>>thats it.
I'd be curious of the distribution of households without plumbed
toilets. Probably some poor areas and on
Indian reservations. I know that up in Fairbanks, Alaska, a lot
of houses are 'dry', since in winter its too cold to use a septic
system or get running water. I don't know how they manage.
Snow melts.
And they have /lots/ of snow.
IIRC, in the coastal southern regions (e.g. Sitka), they catch
and keep rainwater for fresh water purposes. They get somewhere
around 83" of rain annually.
On Friday, February 16, 2024 at 9:24:14 PM UTC-7, Titus G wrote:
Your original claim was that every toilet in the village was stolen and
trucked away. Do you really believe that?
Why not? If it was a large city, or if the claim was that this happened
to a great many villages, that would be hard to believe. But for something co-ordinated to happen once, in a single village (maybe not all the houses had flush toilets to begin with) is not that much of a stretch.
John Savard
On Thu, 08 Feb 2024 13:07:37 -0500, Cryptoengineer wrote:
From that point of view, it's easy to see why some would prefer
letting Russia or China conquer the world. There, it would only
be a thousand years or so to recover.
John Savard
On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 18:40:50 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber ><naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
On 2024-02-13, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
Didn't russia persuade Ukraine to hand back all nuclear weapons on their >>> soil when they became free
It's a bit more complicated, but basically Ukraine received security >>assurances, including from Russia, for giving up the Soviet nuclear
weapons it had inherited on its territory. >>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum
and they've almost been worth the paper they're printed on...
It's alarming enough that the US government has nuclear weapons. I am much >more worried about Google, Wells Fargo, AT&T, or MS13 having them. The
more transuranics are out there, the greater that chance of them getting >diverted. It's not difficult to make a bomb once you have either
uranium that has been enriched to weapons grade, or low grade plutonium
alloy which can be enriched with a comparatively simple chemical process.
As worded, I'd expect that /exclusive/
access to an /outhouse/ with plumbing
counts. Though now I'm anxious about
washing of hands.
Personally, I would rather see Canadians building nuclear power plants in
the US.... they have done a better job on the whole of it than we have.
In article <uqpcd8$8tnu$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >>Your original claim was that every toilet in the village was stolen and >>trucked away. Do you really believe that?
Not too hard to believe, especially if the village has been pretty heavily >bombed to the point where there were only a few intact toilets left.
Certainly I have seen that kind of thing happening in wars before, and the >Russians are known experts. After WWII, they jacked up the Zeiss plant and >took it back to Moscow intact. They jacked up two Agfa plants and took
them back to the Soviet Union which is how they got Sovcolor film. Printing >plants, bearing plants, airplane plants all got packed up and shipped.
On 15/02/2024 17:08, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
The "pull-tab" meant here is the "built-in device used to open a
beverage can" Bing brings up. The can can be said to have been
"popped" when opened. The "beverage" could, of course, be beer.
I actually found a spent beer tab at the local county park
yesterday. First one I've seen in decades.
A modern aluminium can is designed to
keep the pop-out part which opens, attached
to the can - unless you work quite hard to
detach it, I suppose.
Quite large animals including livestock
have been lethally injured by swallowing
the old style, throwaway built-in opener,
so it's better not to have that kind.
And it makes recycling easier.
The Canadian CANDU power plants are heavy water with their own sets of >limitations and issues. All of the nuclear power plants built in the
last 40 years in the USA run at over 90% capacity factor but with
horrible cost overruns due to the complexity of building the dadgum
domes (generally 350 ??? feet tall with 3/4 inch rebar on 6 inch centers
with 3.5 feet wall thickness for a 150 ??? foot diameter). I don't
think that the Canadian Nuclear Power Plants have domes like we build
them in the USA. The USA domes are calculated to take a 707 impact at
600+ ??? knots.
I was present at the start of the first dome test for Comanche Peak 1 in >Texas. Huge sections of the concrete dome were falling off and exposing >voids in the concrete that you could put a person into when we
pressurized the dome to 65 ??? psig. Been too many years since 1983, I >cannot remember the details anymore.
In article <uqpcd8$8tnu$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >>Your original claim was that every toilet in the village was stolen and >>trucked away. Do you really believe that?
Not too hard to believe, especially if the village has been pretty heavily >bombed to the point where there were only a few intact toilets left.
Certainly I have seen that kind of thing happening in wars before, and the >Russians are known experts. After WWII, they jacked up the Zeiss plant and >took it back to Moscow intact. They jacked up two Agfa plants and took
them back to the Soviet Union which is how they got Sovcolor film. Printing >plants, bearing plants, airplane plants all got packed up and shipped. >--scott
Dorothy thought that we were headed to a generic they / them for all
pronouns but, I kinda doubt it.
On 17 Feb 2024 18:09:01 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
In article <uqpcd8$8tnu$1@dont-email.me>, Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> wrote: >>>Your original claim was that every toilet in the village was stolen and >>>trucked away. Do you really believe that?
Not too hard to believe, especially if the village has been pretty heavily >>bombed to the point where there were only a few intact toilets left.
Certainly I have seen that kind of thing happening in wars before, and the >>Russians are known experts. After WWII, they jacked up the Zeiss plant and >>took it back to Moscow intact. They jacked up two Agfa plants and took >>them back to the Soviet Union which is how they got Sovcolor film. Printing >>plants, bearing plants, airplane plants all got packed up and shipped. >>--scott
It's a fine old Soviet tradition - back during WW2 Soviet agents were >stealing AMERICAN blueprints from factories and bundling them off to
air bases for transhipment to Russia. On at least one case they were
caught red-handed (no pun intended) loading them by the filing cabinet
full onto Soviet planes in Alaska - and were held on the ground for
2-3 hours by American military policemen who when they called their
superior officers to let them know were delayed while the brass got
direct orders from the White House to let them go. These plans were
said to be invaluable to postwar Soviet reconstruction in the 1945-50
period.
It's one of the reasons I personally >don't< consider FDR one of
America's best presidents since he either knowingly aided and abetted >America's enemies (which the Soviets were considered by 1944 even
though Hitler was considered a greater US enemy) or knowingly
harborded people that were as senior members as part of his inner
circle or cabinet.
In fact it's a key reason why I regard Truman as greater than FDR
since I think that while FDR was invalualble 1933-40, lots of people
given the industrial power America had could have won the war though
given the state of the Soviet Union in 1944-45 SHOULD have been even
more dominant post-war than they were. Particularly in nuclear
research and aviation/rocketry, the Soviet Union made far greater
advances postwar than they could have on their own.
On 18/02/2024 16:18, Paul S Person wrote:
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:13:55 +0000, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
On 15/02/2024 17:08, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
The "pull-tab" meant here is the "built-in device used to open a
beverage can" Bing brings up. The can can be said to have been
"popped" when opened. The "beverage" could, of course, be beer.
I actually found a spent beer tab at the local county park
yesterday. First one I've seen in decades.
A modern aluminium can is designed to
keep the pop-out part which opens, attached
to the can - unless you work quite hard to
detach it, I suppose.
Quite large animals including livestock
have been lethally injured by swallowing
the old style, throwaway built-in opener,
so it's better not to have that kind.
And it makes recycling easier.
I'm glad to hear it!
Recycling is weird. Not only do the rules differ from place to place,
but then you have "recyclable" toothpaste tubes and other oddities.
I just remembered to check what goes in which
bin when I visit family here.
<https://www.falkirk.gov.uk/services/bins-rubbish-recycling/household-waste/what-goes-in-my-bins/recycling-tool.aspx>
What catches my eye is that they want food cans
to be recycled with their lids on.
And the wrapper. But I've been amusing myself
by using spare boiling water inside a can
to un-glue the label on the outside, to recycle
with paper. I don't really need to do that,
and there may be an appalling accident in my
future. Also I put the lid in the can, and
up to four more - or one if they are ring-pull
removable lids - keeping apart steel and
aluminium, then I crush the top end flat, and
fold it over, to keep the lids safely inside
the can, and anything else in the bin, outside it.
The crushing and folding doesn't work with
too many lids in one can.
This may baffle an AI trash sorting mechanism
unless it has learned my ways by now, but I
think that they use electromagnets instead anyway.
On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 01:01:07 -0600, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
The Canadian CANDU power plants are heavy water with their own sets of >>limitations and issues. All of the nuclear power plants built in the
last 40 years in the USA run at over 90% capacity factor but with
horrible cost overruns due to the complexity of building the dadgum
domes (generally 350 ??? feet tall with 3/4 inch rebar on 6 inch centers >>with 3.5 feet wall thickness for a 150 ??? foot diameter). I don't
think that the Canadian Nuclear Power Plants have domes like we build
them in the USA. The USA domes are calculated to take a 707 impact at >>600+ ??? knots.
I was present at the start of the first dome test for Comanche Peak 1 in >>Texas. Huge sections of the concrete dome were falling off and exposing >>voids in the concrete that you could put a person into when we
pressurized the dome to 65 ??? psig. Been too many years since 1983, I >>cannot remember the details anymore.
Yep - you could probably figure out CANDU by thinking Canadad -
Deuterium - Uranium (needless to say nobody's using "Depleted Uranium"
for generating powerr!)
If the American domes are calculated to take a jumbo impact that's
either engineering or somebody's been watching too many 9/11
slo-motion replies of the Twin Towers.
Of course, A. E. van Vogt _was_ a crank to a certain extent, but getting >orbital mechanics this badly wrong... was, presumably, simply required
so as to allow the plot of the story to exist.
But even in 1944, surely this was risible, given the orbits of known
comets and asteroids.
Van Vogt's orbital mechanics in that story is not just ordinary
wrong, it's brain-hurting wrong.
Some villages in Africa and rural England
are only now getting sanitation... for one
person at a time to use.
On 2/20/2024 9:41 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
[snip-snip]
[Re: "A Can of Paint" (1944)]
Van Vogt's orbital mechanics in that story is not just ordinary
wrong, it's brain-hurting wrong.
To quote John Clute's SFE article:
"Thus freed of any surface verisimilitude, Van Vogt's space operas, as
noted, are at heart enacted dreams which articulate deep, symbolic needs
and wishes of his readership. Because there is no misunderstood science
or cosmography or technology at the very heart of his best work, there
is no "improving" van Vogt."
This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by
then.
Yep - you could probably figure out CANDU by thinking Canadad -
Deuterium - Uranium (needless to say nobody's using "Depleted Uranium"
for generating powerr!)
If the American domes are calculated to take a jumbo impact that's
either engineering or somebody's been watching too many 9/11
slo-motion replies of the Twin Towers.
A 707 is not a jumbo. Well, provided its a Boeing 707; someone else's
707 might be, I suppose.
That 747s were not used probably says something about when the
standards used were developed.
In fact it's a key reason why I regard Truman as greater than FDR
since I think that while FDR was invalualble 1933-40, lots of people
given the industrial power America had could have won the war though
given the state of the Soviet Union in 1944-45 SHOULD have been even
more dominant post-war than they were. Particularly in nuclear
research and aviation/rocketry, the Soviet Union made far greater
advances postwar than they could have on their own.
Yes, some post-War Germans (both WWI and WWII) were absolutely
convinced that they only lost because of "traitors".
Nice story, though.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person ><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by >>then.
Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
wasn't aluminum.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by >>>then.
Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
wasn't aluminum.
Most non-beverage cans (peas, corn, soup, etc) are made from
tin (or steel) so far as I am aware.
On 22/02/2024 16:42, Paul S Person wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:58:44 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by >>>>> then.
Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
wasn't aluminum.
Most non-beverage cans (peas, corn, soup, etc) are made from
tin (or steel) so far as I am aware.
Which would explain why refrigerator magnets cling to them so well.
I haven't used a beverage can in ... so many decades I've forgotten
when. I'm sure I did, though, at some point.
Granovita Mushroom Pate" comes in a small
tin which magnets don't stick to. I assume
it is aluminium.
I expect that large cans may be steel--
regardless of contents, because aluminium
wouldn't scale up affordably in some
uses. Aluminium still is expensive
enough that the can made of it uses as
little of it as possible.
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person >><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately
(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet
they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by >>>then.
Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
wasn't aluminum.
Most non-beverage cans (peas, corn, soup, etc) are made from
tin (or steel) so far as I am aware.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:58:44 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person >>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately >>>>(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think
they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet >>>>they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by >>>>then.
Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
wasn't aluminum.
Most non-beverage cans (peas, corn, soup, etc) are made from
tin (or steel) so far as I am aware.
Good point. I was entirely thinking about drink cans.
In article <jq5cui1al9np5aci78piosne1m8bn9n6tk@4ax.com>,
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:58:44 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) >>wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person >>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed separately >>>>>(under 3") because they cause problems with the equipment (I think >>>>>they slip through the part that grinds everything into pieces). Yet >>>>>they are magnetic, and so (one would think) should be separated out by >>>>>then.
Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that >>>>wasn't aluminum.
Most non-beverage cans (peas, corn, soup, etc) are made from
tin (or steel) so far as I am aware.
Good point. I was entirely thinking about drink cans.
I remember a Rockford Files episode where a guy who was Rockford's
nemesis while they were in jail (maybe Isaac Hayes?) gets out years
after Rockford, and then shows up on his doorstep trying to intimidate
him into performing some task by crushing a soda can with his hand.
Rockford (approx): I don't know if you noticed since you got out, but
those are all aluminum now: Anybody can do that!
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 14:58:44 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2024 09:11:37 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
This is all very weird. Metal can lids are not allowed
separately (under 3") because they cause problems with the
equipment (I think they slip through the part that grinds
everything into pieces). Yet they are magnetic, and so (one
would think) should be separated out by then.
Really?!? It's been years since I've encountered one of those that
wasn't aluminum.
Most non-beverage cans (peas, corn, soup, etc) are made from
tin (or steel) so far as I am aware.
Good point. I was entirely thinking about drink cans.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 303 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 15:10:39 |
| Calls: | 6,799 |
| Files: | 12,317 |
| Messages: | 5,394,244 |
