• Fusion, Maybe

    From Dean Hoffman@21:1/5 to All on Tue Feb 22 15:03:13 2022
    Maybe someone here will be interested. <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to Hoffman on Wed Feb 23 07:09:19 2022
    On a sunny day (Tue, 22 Feb 2022 15:03:13 -0800 (PST)) it happened Dean
    Hoffman <deanh6929@gmail.com> wrote in <acefbd21-2d70-451c-94fa-ace9212d4694n@googlegroups.com>:

    Maybe someone here will be interested. ><https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Yes I've read that a while back.
    May even work.
    Seems we are finally leaving the math equation dictatorship
    and moving more and more to a neural net simulation
    Can go badly wrong too..

    "Look how nice its working, no idea how though!"
    BANG
    oops

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Layman@21:1/5 to Dean Hoffman on Wed Feb 23 08:11:03 2022
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested. <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount
    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"
    energy?

    --

    Jeff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Jeff Layman on Wed Feb 23 08:56:25 2022
    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?


    Unsurprisingly yes. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Jeff Layman on Wed Feb 23 01:16:26 2022
    On 2/23/2022 1:11 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of energy that is produced."

    As with AI: "In the next decade..." :>

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?

    Yes. The Krell. :>

    OTOH, Athena posited the idea of "a VAX of your own" long before it was practical for every home to have one.

    Taking that as a model, it seems like "endless energy" would end up being used "for entertainment purposes"!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Jeff Layman on Wed Feb 23 10:08:22 2022
    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality: <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount
    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Layman@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Feb 23 09:56:50 2022
    On 23/02/2022 08:16, Don Y wrote:
    On 2/23/2022 1:11 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of >> energy that is produced."

    As with AI: "In the next decade..." :>

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?

    Yes. The Krell. :>

    And look what happened to them; "Monsters from the id!" My favourite SF
    film; it never ages, and the special effects are years ahead for its time.

    OTOH, Athena posited the idea of "a VAX of your own" long before it was practical for every home to have one.

    Taking that as a model, it seems like "endless energy" would end up being used
    "for entertainment purposes"!

    I was thinking more that if energy becomes endless, the limiting factor
    for production would be raw materials. Would that mean neutrality for
    places liked the sea bed and perhaps even the Moon would be over?

    --

    Jeff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Don Y@21:1/5 to Jeff Layman on Wed Feb 23 03:47:20 2022
    On 2/23/2022 2:56 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 08:16, Don Y wrote:
    On 2/23/2022 1:11 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of >>> energy that is produced."

    As with AI: "In the next decade..." :>

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?

    Yes. The Krell. :>

    And look what happened to them; "Monsters from the id!" My favourite SF film; it never ages, and the special effects are years ahead for its time.

    Yup. One of the first movies I purchased on laser disc. Though it is odd
    to see Leslie Nielsen in a non-slapstick role.

    I always thought it would be wicked cool to have a Robbie "prop"...

    OTOH, Athena posited the idea of "a VAX of your own" long before it was
    practical for every home to have one.

    Taking that as a model, it seems like "endless energy" would end up being used
    "for entertainment purposes"!

    I was thinking more that if energy becomes endless, the limiting factor for production would be raw materials. Would that mean neutrality for places liked
    the sea bed and perhaps even the Moon would be over?

    If the universe is limitless...

    I prefer, instead, to think about what *actually* would be done with (practically) unlimited energy (barring "illegalities" -- whatever THOSE
    might be). I suspect there is a practical limit on energy required for "needs". OTOH, entertainment/frivolity/play is probably limitless.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Monett@21:1/5 to Jeff Layman on Wed Feb 23 11:27:05 2022
    Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality: <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount
    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?

    Fusion is Fraud

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
    never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
    this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
    but it will never be commercially practical, especially with the
    plummeting cost of renewable sources like solar and wind.

    The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. This was
    demonstrated in the 1960's and ran for years with no significant
    problems. It was discarded since the focus at that time was
    pressurized water reactors for submarines, and the production of
    plutonium for atomic bombs. However, there is a recent resurgence in
    Molten Salt, which offers continuous power when the sun goes down
    and the wind stops blowing.

    Here is some more information on continuous energy sources:

    1. Fusion

    How close is nuclear fusion power?
    Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY

    Fusion Has Major Problems That No One Is Telling You About https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrUWoywZRt8

    Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040 Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurplDfPi3U

    In defense of "Q-plasma" - a response to Sabine Hossenfelder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtqC8W0_Ups

    ITER: The $65BN Power Plant of the Future https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCpWPJrH7TA

    ITER: The World's Biggest Nuclear Fusion Mega Project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4puRMttZho

    2. Molten Salt Works and is cheaper than coal or nuclear power

    1957 to 1960 Oak Ridge The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

    Thorium Lifters Could Power Civilization for BILLIONS of Years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74iiaXIVtZI

    TC No. 6 - Kirk Sorensen: "Thorium - A Global Alternative" Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IjC7vuJ3iE

    China Is Building a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EFfxMx6WJs

    3. Molten Salt can burn conventional nuclear waste

    Elysium Just Made A Nuclear Waste Eating Reactor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLgJY0Wg

    This Molten Salt Reactor EATS Nuclear Waste https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLgJY0Wg

    4. Nuclear Waste: Fission Products, Decay Products, Transuranics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neU0KGgQ0Z4

    Among the fission products are xenon, neodymium, zirconium, and molebdenum.
    - xenon is used in satellite propulsion
    - neodymium is used in electric cars
    - zirconium is strong, malleable, corrosion resistant, with many uses
    - molebdenum is used in carbides and high-strength alloys and superalloys
    - molebdenum is a trace element essential for life

    5. Radioactivity

    5A. Isotopes of xenon

    Naturally occurring xenon (54Xe) consists of seven stable isotopes
    and two very long-lived isotopes. Double electron capture has been
    observed in 124Xe (half-life 1.8 +/- 0.5(stat) +/- 0.1(sys) x1022
    years)[1] and double beta decay in 136Xe (half-life 2.165 +/-
    0.016(stat) +/- 0.059(sys) x1021 years),[2] which are among the
    longest measured half-lives of all nuclides. The isotopes 126Xe and
    134Xe are also predicted to undergo double beta decay,[4] but this
    has never been observed in these isotopes, so they are considered to
    be stable.[5][6] Beyond these stable forms, 32 artificial unstable
    isotopes and various isomers have been studied, the longest-lived of
    which is 127Xe with a half-life of 36.345 days. All other isotopes
    have half-lives less than 12 days, most less than 20 hours. The
    shortest-lived isotope, 108Xe,[7] has a half-life of 58 ?s, and is
    the heaviest known nuclide with equal numbers of protons and
    neutrons. Of known isomers, the longest-lived is 131mXe with a
    half-life of 11.934 days. 129Xe is produced by beta decay of 129I
    (half-life: 16 million years); 131mXe, 133Xe, 133mXe, and 135Xe are
    some of the fission products of both 235U and 239Pu, so are used as
    indicators of nuclear explosions.

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

    5B. Isotopes of neodymium
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Naturally occurring neodymium (60Nd) is composed of 5 stable
    isotopes, 142Nd, 143Nd, 145Nd, 146Nd and 148Nd, with 142Nd being the
    most abundant (27.2% natural abundance), and 2 long-lived radioisotopes, 144Nd and 150Nd. In all, 33 radioisotopes of
    neodymium have been characterized up to now, with the most stable
    being naturally occurring isotopes 144Nd (alpha decay, a half-life
    (t1/2) of 2.29x1015 years) and 150Nd (double beta decay, t1/2 of
    7x1018 years).

    All of the remaining radioactive isotopes have half-lives that are
    less than 12 days, and the majority of these have half-lives that
    are less than 70 seconds; the most stable artificial isotope is
    147Nd with a half-life of 10.98 days. This element also has 13 known
    meta states with the most stable being 139mNd (t1/2 5.5 hours),
    135mNd (t1/2 5.5 minutes) and 133m1Nd (t1/2 ~70 seconds).

    The primary decay modes before the most abundant stable isotope,
    142Nd, are electron capture and positron decay, and the primary mode
    after is beta decay. The primary decay products before 142Nd are
    element Pr (praseodymium) isotopes and the primary products after
    are element Pm (promethium) isotopes.

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

    5C. Isotopes of molybdenum

    Molybdenum (42Mo) has 33 known isotopes, ranging in atomic mass from
    83 to 115, as well as four metastable nuclear isomers. Seven
    isotopes occur naturally, with atomic masses of 92, 94, 95, 96, 97,
    98, and 100. All unstable isotopes of molybdenum decay into isotopes
    of zirconium, niobium, technetium, and ruthenium.[2]

    Molybdenum-100 is the only naturally occurring isotope that is not
    stable. Molybdenum-100 has a half-life of approximately 1x1019 y and
    undergoes double beta decay into ruthenium-100. Molybdenum-98 is the
    most common isotope, comprising 24.14% of all molybdenum on Earth.
    Molybdenum isotopes with mass numbers 111 and up all have half-lives
    of approximately .15 s.[2]

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

    5D. Isotopes of zirconium

    Naturally occurring zirconium (40Zr) is composed of four stable
    isotopes (of which one may in the future be found radioactive), and
    one very long-lived radioisotope (96Zr), a primordial nuclide that
    decays via double beta decay with an observed half-life of 2.0x1019
    years;[3] it can also undergo single beta decay, which is not yet
    observed, but the theoretically predicted value of t1/2 is 2.4x1020
    years.[4] The second most stable radioisotope is 93Zr, which has a
    half-life of 1.53 million years. Thirty other radioisotopes have
    been observed. All have half-lives less than a day except for 95Zr
    (64.02 days), 88Zr (83.4 days), and 89Zr (78.41 hours). The primary
    decay mode is electron capture for isotopes lighter than 92Zr, and
    the primary mode for heavier isotopes is beta decay.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Wed Feb 23 06:30:11 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of
    energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?

    Unsurprisingly yes. https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is "economic growth cannot continue indefinitely", and gets immediately replaced by the "energy scale expanding into the future". These are not the same things at all.

    I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist's position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the 80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have
    allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine before. We find new technology that allows better products using less material and energy. We discover new means of medical diagnosis
    and treatment extending and improving life.

    None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption. The entire argument is specious.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Wed Feb 23 07:21:56 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:27:16 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett wrote:
    Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality: <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>

    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of energy that is produced."

    It has to be scaled up to start actually generating power.

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?

    You've got to dissipate the waste heat after you've used to do whatever you want to. Anybody who has ever worked with power electronics should be conscious of that particular limit.

    Fusion is Fraud

    Twaddle. The sun has been working fine for the past few billion years. Getting a scheme that can produce less energy, in a smaller space, with better control, is taking a while, but nobody has been promising that it can be made to work overnight. There'
    s no fraud involved . You might prefer that the investment was directed to what you imagine might be more promising projects, but that's a personal opinion.

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will never power cities.

    Why ?

    The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost of renewable sources like solar and wind.

    Having physicists design the equipment isn't a way to get something cheap or simple. ITER is a proof of principle machine, and it has to be flexible enough to cover a range of operating conditions. Once you have got something that works you can start
    refining the design to make it work well at whatever the optimal operating conditions turn out to be, and leave out most of the bells an whistles that tell you exactly what's going on and all the knobs that graduate students love to twiddle.

    The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors.

    It might be a solution, but it has most of the problems of U-235 based reactors, which do seem to be hideously expensive

    This was demonstrated in the 1960's and ran for years with no significant problems. It was discarded since the focus at that time was
    pressurized water reactors for submarines, and the production of
    plutonium for atomic bombs. However, there is a recent resurgence in
    Molten Salt, which offers continuous power when the sun goes down
    and the wind stops blowing.

    And much the same sort of radioactive waste as regular U-235 based reactors. It's not the same waste - the U-238 in regular reactors isn't there to make it's contribution - but it's bad enough to need the same kind of care for a couple of hundred
    thousand years.

    Here is some more information on continuous energy sources:

    <snipped - life's to short to spend it sorting through propaganda>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Feb 23 15:30:29 2022
    On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> But >>> even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of
    energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"
    energy?

    Unsurprisingly yes.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and thinks the
    physicist's position is wrong.

    The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is "economic growth cannot continue indefinitely", and gets immediately replaced by the "energy scale expanding into the future". These are not the same things at all.

    I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist's position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the 80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine before. We find new technology that allows better products using less material and energy. We discover new means of medical diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.

    None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption. The entire argument is specious.

    There's validity to that objection, but historically the
    energy - wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.

    The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit
    that we become 16* more energy efficient by some "magic"
    (Arthur C. Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by
    4 doubling generations. And that's not enough to invalidate
    the basic observations.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Wed Feb 23 07:34:39 2022
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of >> energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?


    Unsurprisingly yes. >https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
    economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
    dishonest. Coder thinking. It's amusing, so I'm not complaining.

    The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
    author's superiority and to make article filler. "The conversation
    recreated here..." One sees a lot of that.

    The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate
    moot. He's not thinking ahead.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Tom Gardner on Wed Feb 23 08:00:48 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner wrote:
    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to >>> reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> But
    even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of >>> energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" >>> energy?

    Unsurprisingly yes.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and thinks the
    physicist's position is wrong.

    The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is "economic growth cannot continue indefinitely", and gets immediately replaced by the "energy scale expanding into the future". These are not the same things at all.

    I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist's position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the 80s and 90s. What it fails
    to take into account is the ability to do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine before. We find new technology that allows better products using less material and energy. We discover new means of medical diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.

    None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption. The entire argument is specious.
    There's validity to that objection, but historically the
    energy - wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.

    The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit
    that we become 16* more energy efficient by some "magic"
    (Arthur C. Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by
    4 doubling generations. And that's not enough to invalidate
    the basic observations.

    Why can't you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because we used more energy per individual, but because the human population grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred
    years technology has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.

    At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent parts of the globe.

    So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable future.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Wed Feb 23 07:40:04 2022
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount
    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"
    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.

    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Feb 23 08:05:50 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:47:46 AM UTC-5, Don Y wrote:
    On 2/23/2022 2:56 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 08:16, Don Y wrote:
    On 2/23/2022 1:11 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>> But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of
    energy that is produced."

    As with AI: "In the next decade..." :>

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?

    Yes. The Krell. :>

    And look what happened to them; "Monsters from the id!" My favourite SF film;
    it never ages, and the special effects are years ahead for its time.
    Yup. One of the first movies I purchased on laser disc. Though it is odd
    to see Leslie Nielsen in a non-slapstick role.

    I always thought it would be wicked cool to have a Robbie "prop"...
    OTOH, Athena posited the idea of "a VAX of your own" long before it was >> practical for every home to have one.

    Taking that as a model, it seems like "endless energy" would end up being used
    "for entertainment purposes"!

    I was thinking more that if energy becomes endless, the limiting factor for
    production would be raw materials. Would that mean neutrality for places liked
    the sea bed and perhaps even the Moon would be over?
    If the universe is limitless...

    I prefer, instead, to think about what *actually* would be done with (practically) unlimited energy (barring "illegalities" -- whatever THOSE might be). I suspect there is a practical limit on energy required for "needs". OTOH, entertainment/frivolity/play is probably limitless.

    If nothing else, there is a practical limit to energy use because all energy used must be disposed of. I suppose we could use more energy to get rid of the energy we've used, like the energy used for cooling server farms being more than the energy used
    in the electronics itself. But at some point even if the energy is "free", it becomes a problem in itself. Much like money. At what point does money become a detriment rather than an improvement to the quality of life? Yeah, you can spend money to
    deal with having money, but ultimately there is a point where it becomes more of a problem than a solution.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 23 16:25:29 2022
    On 23/02/22 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of >>> energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?


    Unsurprisingly yes.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
    economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
    dishonest. Coder thinking. It's amusing, so I'm not complaining.

    You have poo-poohed the physics in that article several
    times in the past, in particular the thermodynamics of
    the earth being a reasonable approximation to a black
    body radiator. "Assume a spherical cow..." and all that.


    The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
    author's superiority and to make article filler. "The conversation
    recreated here..." One sees a lot of that.

    Of course it is a fabricated conversation, a classic
    gedankenexperimenten. From the introductory first paragraph...

    "Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, “economic growth
    cannot continue indefinitely,” just to see where things would
    go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
    alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical constraints—not for the first time, but here it was up-close
    and personal."


    The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate
    moot. He's not thinking ahead.

    Of course, there are /many/ presumptions there; it isn't a prediction!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Feb 23 17:21:32 2022
    On 23/02/2022 17:00, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
    wrote:
    On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
    wrote:
    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is
    nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>>> But even there note "The latest results use about three times
    the amount of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of
    "endless" energy?

    Unsurprisingly yes.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is
    "economic growth cannot continue indefinitely", and gets
    immediately replaced by the "energy scale expanding into the
    future". These are not the same things at all.

    I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist's
    position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the
    80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to
    do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have
    allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with
    machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine
    before. We find new technology that allows better products using
    less material and energy. We discover new means of medical
    diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.

    None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption.
    The entire argument is specious.
    There's validity to that objection, but historically the energy -
    wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.

    The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit that
    we become 16* more energy efficient by some "magic" (Arthur C.
    Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by 4 doubling
    generations. And that's not enough to invalidate the basic
    observations.

    Why can't you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The
    energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because
    we used more energy per individual, but because the human population
    grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred years technology
    has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise
    enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the
    more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.

    At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until
    the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent
    parts of the globe.

    So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off
    of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the
    quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable
    future.


    I wonder if you read the article in detail? (It was quite long.) All
    your points are covered there.

    Yes, population has increased - but energy usage has increased at a
    higher rate. (And yes, that has levelled off somewhat in the past few
    decades, in developed countries.)

    Yes, efficiency - what we can do with the same amount of energy - has
    improved. But in many use-cases, we are relatively near the limit. All
    the big leaps have already been made in some areas. The efficiency of,
    say, driving an electric motor, or a petrol motor, or lighting houses,
    is all within spitting distance of optimal. Being generous and saying efficiency could be doubled, and that still won't last long against
    exponential increase.

    Efficiency is limited. Energy production is limited. Therefore,
    productive work is limited, and economic growth cannot continue
    unbounded. That is the gist of the argument, and it is inescapable.

    However, there is no physical law hindering slower growth that tails off
    - with a growth rate that slows. Exponential economic growth cannot
    continue indefinitely, but we could have an S-shaped curve rather than expecting the J-shaped curve to continue. Then economic growth can
    continue into the foreseeable future - but we would not expect to see
    "x% annual growth".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Feb 23 16:30:08 2022
    On 23/02/22 16:21, David Brown wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 17:00, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
    wrote:
    On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
    wrote:
    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is
    nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>>>> But even there note "The latest results use about three times
    the amount of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of
    "endless" energy?

    Unsurprisingly yes.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is
    "economic growth cannot continue indefinitely", and gets
    immediately replaced by the "energy scale expanding into the
    future". These are not the same things at all.

    I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist's
    position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the
    80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to
    do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have
    allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with
    machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine
    before. We find new technology that allows better products using
    less material and energy. We discover new means of medical
    diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.

    None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption.
    The entire argument is specious.
    There's validity to that objection, but historically the energy -
    wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.

    The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit that
    we become 16* more energy efficient by some "magic" (Arthur C.
    Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by 4 doubling
    generations. And that's not enough to invalidate the basic
    observations.

    Why can't you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The
    energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because
    we used more energy per individual, but because the human population
    grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred years technology
    has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise
    enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the
    more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.

    At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until
    the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent
    parts of the globe.

    So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off
    of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the
    quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable
    future.


    I wonder if you read the article in detail? (It was quite long.) All
    your points are covered there.

    Beat me to it!

    I suspect the introductory paragraph was speed-read...

    "Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, “economic growth
    cannot continue indefinitely,” just to see where things would
    go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
    alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical constraints—not for the first time, but here it was up-close
    and personal."


    Yes, population has increased - but energy usage has increased at a
    higher rate. (And yes, that has levelled off somewhat in the past few decades, in developed countries.)

    Yes, efficiency - what we can do with the same amount of energy - has improved. But in many use-cases, we are relatively near the limit. All
    the big leaps have already been made in some areas. The efficiency of,
    say, driving an electric motor, or a petrol motor, or lighting houses,
    is all within spitting distance of optimal. Being generous and saying efficiency could be doubled, and that still won't last long against exponential increase.

    Efficiency is limited. Energy production is limited. Therefore,
    productive work is limited, and economic growth cannot continue
    unbounded. That is the gist of the argument, and it is inescapable.

    However, there is no physical law hindering slower growth that tails off
    - with a growth rate that slows. Exponential economic growth cannot
    continue indefinitely, but we could have an S-shaped curve rather than expecting the J-shaped curve to continue. Then economic growth can
    continue into the foreseeable future - but we would not expect to see
    "x% annual growth".

    Even if you radically reduced the inefficiency of the physical
    processes, that would only delay the conclusion by a few years.
    That's the "wonder" of exponential growth!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Wed Feb 23 08:52:12 2022
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/22 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of
    energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?


    Unsurprisingly yes.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
    economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
    dishonest. Coder thinking. It's amusing, so I'm not complaining.

    You have poo-poohed the physics in that article several
    times in the past, in particular the thermodynamics of
    the earth being a reasonable approximation to a black
    body radiator. "Assume a spherical cow..." and all that.

    More outright lies. In quotes yet. Cite.

    You're a coder, a typist, right? I deal with heat transfer constantly;
    not just theory, but theory and design and experiment and products
    that work.

    How much power do you suppose I can dissipate on one of these boards,
    each about 4" x 14"?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/gr57bhafemypi63/P940_box_9.jpg?dl=0



    The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
    author's superiority and to make article filler. "The conversation
    recreated here..." One sees a lot of that.

    Of course it is a fabricated conversation, a classic
    gedankenexperimenten. From the introductory first paragraph...

    "Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, economic growth
    cannot continue indefinitely, just to see where things would
    go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
    alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical >constraintsnot for the first time, but here it was up-close
    and personal."

    Yup. Fabrication. Straw man to mock.



    The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate
    moot. He's not thinking ahead.

    Of course, there are /many/ presumptions there; it isn't a prediction!

    Fuzzy thinking on his part. Mindless insults on yours.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Jeff Layman on Wed Feb 23 17:00:53 2022
    Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote in news:sv50d2$bh4$1@dont-email.me:

    And look what happened to them; "Monsters from the id!" My
    favourite SF film; it never ages, and the special effects are
    years ahead for its time.

    So was Robbie.

    IIRC it was also the first stereo soundtrack as well, but I do not
    think it had that name yet.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Wed Feb 23 17:05:27 2022
    Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> wrote in news:XnsAE4741A47FDAFidtokenpost@ 144.76.35.252:

    Fusion is Fraud

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
    never power cities.

    How is it "clear"? Damn I hate stupid twerps downplaying scientific advancement. Are you Larkin's brother?

    Your mother claiming you were human was a fraud, because CLEARLY you
    are a piece of shit.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Don Y on Wed Feb 23 17:03:31 2022
    Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote in
    news:sv53c7$9lp$1@dont-email.me:

    Yup. One of the first movies I purchased on laser disc. Though
    it is odd to see Leslie Nielsen in a non-slapstick role.


    He was to play comedic roles ever since this film, but this film was a
    serious role.

    I had this on Laser Disc, DVD, HD-DVD, and BluRay. I even had the
    canned HD DVD release which contained a small robbie the robot in it.
    All stolen from me.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From StupidAs StupidGet@21:1/5 to DecadentLinux...@decadence.org on Wed Feb 23 09:21:46 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 9:05:37 AM UTC-8, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
    Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote in news:XnsAE4741A47FDAFidtokenpost@ 144.76.35.252:
    Fusion is Fraud

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
    never power cities.
    How is it "clear"? Damn I hate stupid twerps downplaying scientific advancement. Are you Larkin's brother?

    Your mother claiming you were human was a fraud, because CLEARLY you
    are a piece of shit.

    Freaking Foul Fool

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 09:44:00 2022
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    Jeff Layman <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount
    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"
    energy?

    Fusion is Fraud

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
    never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
    this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
    but it will never be commercially practical, especially with the
    plummeting cost of renewable sources like solar and wind.

    The tokamak versions don't look promising, except as giant money
    sinks. Some other form of fusion might be practical.

    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly
    nasty.


    The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. This was
    demonstrated in the 1960's and ran for years with no significant
    problems. It was discarded since the focus at that time was
    pressurized water reactors for submarines, and the production of
    plutonium for atomic bombs. However, there is a recent resurgence in
    Molten Salt, which offers continuous power when the sun goes down
    and the wind stops blowing.

    Europe is the big regressive experiment in energy poverty.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Feb 23 09:44:49 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 11:21:43 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 17:00, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
    wrote:
    On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
    wrote:
    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is
    nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>>> But even there note "The latest results use about three times
    the amount of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of
    "endless" energy?

    Unsurprisingly yes.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is
    "economic growth cannot continue indefinitely", and gets
    immediately replaced by the "energy scale expanding into the
    future". These are not the same things at all.

    I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist's
    position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the
    80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to
    do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have
    allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with
    machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine
    before. We find new technology that allows better products using
    less material and energy. We discover new means of medical
    diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.

    None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption.
    The entire argument is specious.
    There's validity to that objection, but historically the energy -
    wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.

    The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit that
    we become 16* more energy efficient by some "magic" (Arthur C.
    Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by 4 doubling
    generations. And that's not enough to invalidate the basic
    observations.

    Why can't you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The
    energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because
    we used more energy per individual, but because the human population
    grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred years technology
    has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise
    enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the
    more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.

    At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until
    the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent
    parts of the globe.

    So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off
    of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the
    quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable
    future.

    I wonder if you read the article in detail? (It was quite long.) All
    your points are covered there.

    Covered, yes. Covered fallaciously.


    Yes, population has increased - but energy usage has increased at a
    higher rate. (And yes, that has levelled off somewhat in the past few decades, in developed countries.)

    Part of the point is that the chart is covering periods of burning cow dung for heat as well as energy consumption from nuclear power. There is nothing that can be learned from such a comparison and no general trend is valid. What is significant, is
    that *world wide* energy consumption has nearly leveled off over the last 50 years, increasing perhaps 15% while the population has doubled. Yeah, that's a real trend.


    Yes, efficiency - what we can do with the same amount of energy - has improved. But in many use-cases, we are relatively near the limit. All
    the big leaps have already been made in some areas. The efficiency of,
    say, driving an electric motor, or a petrol motor, or lighting houses,
    is all within spitting distance of optimal. Being generous and saying efficiency could be doubled, and that still won't last long against exponential increase.

    You are citing a mythical "exponential" increase of something, but what??? Certainly not energy. That's nearly at a constant level now. Population is still increasing, but no longer exponentially and we can expect it to level off at some point in the
    relatively near future. So where does this imaginary exponential increase come from???


    Efficiency is limited. Energy production is limited. Therefore,
    productive work is limited, and economic growth cannot continue
    unbounded. That is the gist of the argument, and it is inescapable.

    That is the gist of the argument and is also the clear fallacy. "Economic growth" does not depend on energy growth.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to jmlayman@invalid.invalid on Wed Feb 23 14:30:42 2022
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:56:50 +0000, Jeff Layman
    <jmlayman@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 23/02/2022 08:16, Don Y wrote:
    On 2/23/2022 1:11 AM, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of >>> energy that is produced."

    As with AI: "In the next decade..." :>

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?

    Yes. The Krell. :>

    And look what happened to them; "Monsters from the id!" My favourite SF
    film; it never ages, and the special effects are years ahead for its time.

    OTOH, Athena posited the idea of "a VAX of your own" long before it was
    practical for every home to have one.

    Taking that as a model, it seems like "endless energy" would end up being used
    "for entertainment purposes"!

    I was thinking more that if energy becomes endless, the limiting factor
    for production would be raw materials. Would that mean neutrality for
    places liked the sea bed and perhaps even the Moon would be over?

    This won't be a problem. If one has unlimited energy, it's easy to
    mine the junkyards and recycle everything.

    Why isn't this already done? Because pulling the components of an
    alloy apart is more expensive than mining new material from ore. With
    free electricity, one can separate metallic elements by electrolysis,
    as is done in the refining of copper and the production of aluminum.

    Joe Gwinn

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 23 20:53:26 2022
    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount >>> of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"
    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.

    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,
    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Wed Feb 23 11:57:18 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett wrote:

    Fusion is Fraud

    Huh? Doesn't the sun shine where you are?

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use...

    Same as Edison's light bulb in year one, or Volta's battery in year 100

    and will
    never power cities.

    Never is a long time. But, not a number, like a time estimate.

    The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
    this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,

    ITER is a test bed; it 'works' if it gives test results, it isn't
    intended as a power plant. As for complexity, have you toted up the
    parts in the display, and attached computer, that's in front of you now?

    That's all very weak argument.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 22:14:39 2022
    On 2/23/2022 21:57, whit3rd wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett wrote:

    Fusion is Fraud

    Huh? Doesn't the sun shine where you are?

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use...

    Same as Edison's light bulb in year one, or Volta's battery in year 100

    and will
    never power cities.

    Never is a long time. But, not a number, like a time estimate.

    The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
    this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,

    ITER is a test bed; it 'works' if it gives test results, it isn't
    intended as a power plant. As for complexity, have you toted up the
    parts in the display, and attached computer, that's in front of you now?

    That's all very weak argument.

    You are right of course but he made a good point about the small
    fission reactors which we can have in mass production for many years
    now.
    I remember about 20 years ago some announcement of a Toshiba reactor,
    lasting for 30 years without being refueled. I then did a rough
    cost calculation and it was at least twice cheaper to have it
    power a village (and the prices here in Bulgaria were really low).
    Someone had posted it to the radsafe mailing list, don't know
    what happened to the design, did it really work, was it killed off
    for political reasons etc. but it surely looked good.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 12:52:34 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 2:57:29 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett wrote:

    Fusion is Fraud

    Huh? Doesn't the sun shine where you are?

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use...

    Same as Edison's light bulb in year one, or Volta's battery in year 100
    and will
    never power cities.
    Never is a long time. But, not a number, like a time estimate.
    The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
    this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
    ITER is a test bed; it 'works' if it gives test results, it isn't
    intended as a power plant. As for complexity, have you toted up the
    parts in the display, and attached computer, that's in front of you now?

    ITER is intended to achieve significant energy over it's own operating requirements. I see the number 500 MW tossed around. Given its cost, that may not be a goal for practical electrical generating system, but it's pretty durn good! If they can lower
    the cost, fusion will become *the* energy source for virtually all needs. But they will need to *seriously* lower the cost of the installation.

    I read recently that the core is in sections which have to be welded together. Some of them were dropped, yes, DROPPED, so that they have to be assembled differently. This is requiring different inspection and approvals now, so they are held up until
    this can be addressed.

    "Hey! Watch out! Don't drop that! It's expensive!!!"

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Dimiter Popoff on Wed Feb 23 12:43:34 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:14:49 PM UTC-5, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 2/23/2022 21:57, whit3rd wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett wrote:

    Fusion is Fraud

    Huh? Doesn't the sun shine where you are?

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use...

    Same as Edison's light bulb in year one, or Volta's battery in year 100

    and will
    never power cities.

    Never is a long time. But, not a number, like a time estimate.

    The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
    this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,

    ITER is a test bed; it 'works' if it gives test results, it isn't
    intended as a power plant. As for complexity, have you toted up the
    parts in the display, and attached computer, that's in front of you now?

    That's all very weak argument.
    You are right of course but he made a good point about the small
    fission reactors which we can have in mass production for many years
    now.
    I remember about 20 years ago some announcement of a Toshiba reactor, lasting for 30 years without being refueled. I then did a rough
    cost calculation and it was at least twice cheaper to have it
    power a village (and the prices here in Bulgaria were really low).
    Someone had posted it to the radsafe mailing list, don't know
    what happened to the design, did it really work, was it killed off
    for political reasons etc. but it surely looked good.

    How was a cost for the device produced? A single-use reactor would have minimal operating expense, mostly the capital investment amortization. So the initial cost is important to know accurately.

    Whenever I think about the cost of new nuclear facilities, it makes me remember that the Westinghouse nuclear company going bankrupt. They were driven bankrupt by the attempt to build new reactors in South Carolina. That says a lot about nuclear
    regardless of the prospects of a new version of reactor. It is hard to get anyone to invest in them at this point, at least in the US.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Feb 23 21:08:47 2022
    Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in news:cee8906a-8b56-4e07-bf5d-ba43bce50049n@googlegroups.com:

    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 2:57:29 PM UTC-5, whit3rd
    wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett
    wrote:


    Fusion is Fraud

    Huh? Doesn't the sun shine where you are?

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use...

    Same as Edison's light bulb in year one, or Volta's battery in
    year 100
    and will
    never power cities.
    Never is a long time. But, not a number, like a time estimate.
    The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
    this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it
    work,
    ITER is a test bed; it 'works' if it gives test results, it isn't
    intended as a power plant. As for complexity, have you toted up
    the parts in the display, and attached computer, that's in front
    of you now?


    ITER is intended to achieve significant energy over it's own
    operating requirements. I see the number 500 MW tossed around.
    Given its cost, that may not be a goal for practical electrical
    generating system, but it's pretty durn good! If they can lower
    the cost, fusion will become *the* energy source for virtually all
    needs. But they will need to *seriously* lower the cost of the
    installation.

    I read recently that the core is in sections which have to be
    welded together. Some of them were dropped, yes, DROPPED, so that
    they have to be assembled differently. This is requiring
    different inspection and approvals now, so they are held up until
    this can be addressed.

    "Hey! Watch out! Don't drop that! It's expensive!!!"


    "Watson, come quickly! I need your help right away!" -A G Bell

    So if one wants to be a great inventor, pour some acid onto
    yourself at some point and your career will take off from there.

    Just try to keep the dosage below 400 mcg.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 23 21:15:49 2022
    On 23/02/22 16:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/22 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>>> But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of
    energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?


    Unsurprisingly yes.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
    economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
    dishonest. Coder thinking. It's amusing, so I'm not complaining.

    You have poo-poohed the physics in that article several
    times in the past, in particular the thermodynamics of
    the earth being a reasonable approximation to a black
    body radiator. "Assume a spherical cow..." and all that.

    More outright lies. In quotes yet. Cite.

    You're a coder, a typist, right? I deal with heat transfer constantly;
    not just theory, but theory and design and experiment and products
    that work.

    I've made low-noise analogue electronic products,
    semi-custom digital products, radio propagation,
    and many incidental things including system design
    tradeoffs. Plus hard realtime and soft realtime software.

    I can't be bothered to trawl the s.e.d. archives to
    find something you would ignore.



    How much power do you suppose I can dissipate on one of these boards,
    each about 4" x 14"?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/gr57bhafemypi63/P940_box_9.jpg?dl=0

    Irrelevant w.r.t. black body radiation, of course.



    The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
    author's superiority and to make article filler. "The conversation
    recreated here..." One sees a lot of that.

    Of course it is a fabricated conversation, a classic
    gedankenexperimenten. From the introductory first paragraph...

    "Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, “economic growth
    cannot continue indefinitely,” just to see where things would
    go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
    alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical
    constraints—not for the first time, but here it was up-close
    and personal."

    Yup. Fabrication. Straw man to mock.

    Gedankenexperimenten are /always/ "fabricated"; they have to be!

    I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.


    The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate
    moot. He's not thinking ahead.

    Of course, there are /many/ presumptions there; it isn't a prediction!

    Fuzzy thinking on his part. Mindless insults on yours.

    You were insulting.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Wed Feb 23 15:59:44 2022
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 21:15:49 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/22 16:52, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:25:29 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/22 15:34, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>>>> But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of
    energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?


    Unsurprisingly yes.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
    economists. Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
    dishonest. Coder thinking. It's amusing, so I'm not complaining.

    You have poo-poohed the physics in that article several
    times in the past, in particular the thermodynamics of
    the earth being a reasonable approximation to a black
    body radiator. "Assume a spherical cow..." and all that.

    More outright lies. In quotes yet. Cite.

    You're a coder, a typist, right? I deal with heat transfer constantly;
    not just theory, but theory and design and experiment and products
    that work.

    I've made low-noise analogue electronic products,
    semi-custom digital products, radio propagation,
    and many incidental things including system design
    tradeoffs. Plus hard realtime and soft realtime software.

    I can't be bothered to trawl the s.e.d. archives to
    find something you would ignore.


    Lies confirmed.




    How much power do you suppose I can dissipate on one of these boards,
    each about 4" x 14"?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/gr57bhafemypi63/P940_box_9.jpg?dl=0

    Irrelevant w.r.t. black body radiation, of course.

    Not much on thermal issues, are you?





    The conversation in your link was obiously fabricated to show the
    author's superiority and to make article filler. "The conversation
    recreated here..." One sees a lot of that.

    Of course it is a fabricated conversation, a classic
    gedankenexperimenten. From the introductory first paragraph...

    "Shortly after pleasantries, I said to him, economic growth
    cannot continue indefinitely, just to see where things would
    go. It was a lively and informative conversation. I was somewhat
    alarmed by the disconnect between economic theory and physical
    constraintsnot for the first time, but here it was up-close
    and personal."

    Yup. Fabrication. Straw man to mock.

    Gedankenexperimenten are /always/ "fabricated"; they have to be!

    I don't think you know what a straw man argument is.


    The guy is missing some crucial points that make his fictitious debate >>>> moot. He's not thinking ahead.

    Of course, there are /many/ presumptions there; it isn't a prediction!

    Fuzzy thinking on his part. Mindless insults on yours.

    You were insulting.

    I don't initiate insults. You did.

    Go back to typing.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 23 17:24:56 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:34:55 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 08:56:25 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of
    energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?


    Unsurprisingly yes. >https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    What a bizarre claim; I said no such thing and I routinely mock
    economists.

    Only the post-Keynesian ones, The clowns that tout the Laffer curve have your support and admiration.

    Somehow just my common name makes people obsessive and
    dishonest. Coder thinking. It's amusing, so I'm not complaining.

    Bizarre idea. The people who point out that you post nonsense aren't being dishonest or obsessive, even if yopu'd prefer this to be true.

    <snipped more nonsense>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 23 17:45:31 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 4:44:21 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:
    Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:

    <snip>

    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    The guy who isn't worried by the fact that that burning fossil carbon for fuel has pushed up the atmospheric CO2 level from from 270ppm to it;s current 412.5 ppm isn't worried about dangerously radioactive nuclear waste that needs to be isolated for a
    couple of hundred thousand years, when we still haven't got any kind of repository that could do that, when it has been a known problem for about seventy years now.

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly nasty.

    Natural gas is half as nasty, and there's only a finite amount in the ground, so it isn't going to stay cheap

    The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. This was
    demonstrated in the 1960's and ran for years with no significant
    problems. It was discarded since the focus at that time was
    pressurized water reactors for submarines, and the production of
    plutonium for atomic bombs. However, there is a recent resurgence in >Molten Salt, which offers continuous power when the sun goes down
    and the wind stops blowing.

    Europe is the big regressive experiment in energy poverty.

    Australia is also dumping it's coal fired electricity generating plants in favour of wind farms and solar cells. Quite what's "regressive" about that escapes me.

    The solar cells got a lot more popular recently when the University of New South Wales invented an improved solar cell that made slightly more efficient use of the sunlight hitting it, and could be manufactured cheaply in very high volume (which the
    Chinese have been doing for about five years now).

    Renewable power is now appreciably cheaper than the power you get by burning fossil carbon, and the local coal miners are playing dirty politics in the hope that they can get their income to taper off a bit more slowly.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Wed Feb 23 19:02:27 2022
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount >>>> of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" >>>> energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.

    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse
    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,
    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
    the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
    to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Monett@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 24 04:34:48 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    [...]

    Fusion is Fraud

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
    never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
    this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it >>will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost >>of renewable sources like solar and wind.

    The tokamak versions don't look promising, except as giant money
    sinks. Some other form of fusion might be practical.

    Fantastic breakthroughs are announced regularly. Stock shares increase in value, which are then sold off at huge profit. Nothing more is heard of the breakthrough, until a new breakthrough is announced. The cycle repeats.

    This is the classical pump and dump scheme.

    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to Thorium
    Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot melt down. They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

    TMSR's are walk-away safe. A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of
    power. The molten salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon
    moderators. The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
    over.

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly
    nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Wed Feb 23 20:20:34 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 2:02:41 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:

    <snip>

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty, the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat to cook and not freeze to death.

    True, but burning fossil carbon isn't the only way to get it.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.

    Really? They haven't built enough renewable generation capacity yet (or the grid storage that it takes to cover the gaps when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing) but the experiment is in full swing, and it does seem to be a positive and
    constructive approach, though the people who have been making a lot of money out of selling fossil carbon as fuel aren't fond of it, and spend money on lying propaganda that our gullible John Larkin does lap up.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Wed Feb 23 21:40:32 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:
    [...]
    Fusion is Fraud

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
    never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of >>this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it >>will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost >>of renewable sources like solar and wind.

    The tokamak versions don't look promising, except as giant money
    sinks. Some other form of fusion might be practical.

    Fantastic breakthroughs are announced regularly.

    Researchers make claims about promising approaches from time to time.

    Stock shares increase in value, which are then sold off at huge profit.

    Name one.

    https://hb11.energy/

    https://www.businessnewsaustralia.com/articles/hydrogen-fusion-startup-hb11-energy-hits--4-8m-in-oversubscribed-pre-seed-raise.html

    has raised some 4.8 million in Australian dollars, but the sell-off at huge profit doesn't seem to have happened.

    Nothing more is heard of the breakthrough, until a new breakthrough is announced. The cycle repeats.

    Example?

    This is the classical pump and dump scheme.

    It would be, if it happened.

    Fission is sensible but scares people.
    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot melt down.

    But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you will find out the hard way. Melting isn't the problem - producing heat that you can't get rid of is -
    and Fukushima failed because the diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant got flooded and stopped working.

    They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste products are
    commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

    Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you have with a regular nuclear reactor.

    Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it can undergo nuclear fission.

    TMSR's are walk-away safe.

    Until they aren't.

    A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators. The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is over.

    If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have a way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly nasty.

    Fossil fuels produce CO2.

    But John Larkin has been persuaded that this doesn't matter.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 24 06:04:26 2022
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h2g8mrjkalnvrcs6ld@4ax.com>:

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to >>>>> reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>>> But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount >>>>> of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" >>>>> energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is. >>>>
    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse
    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, >>sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
    the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
    to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.

    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.
    Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?)
    and used Fuckupshima fear to get the masses to vote for it.

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their own people by fracking
    and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs automatically.
    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low IQ followers buying that
    and look at the 'size' of the land they stole from the native Americans
    you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the rest of the world.
    I am not sure such a scenario can now be excluded.
    If you do the maaz that is.
    Us neural nets .. AI deployed..
    Maybe that vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too.
    Yea man,

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Thu Feb 24 05:45:53 2022
    Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> wrote in news:XnsAE47EFDE9A370idtokenpost@ 144.76.35.252:

    This is the classical pump and dump scheme.


    Your retarded comments are the classical Spew and Froth Utterance
    Stupidity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Wed Feb 23 22:40:09 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to >>>>> reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>>> But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount
    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" >>>>> energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is. >>>>
    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse >>> mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, >>sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
    the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
    to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.
    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they will end up a third
    world country and we will have to send them aid.


    Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?)
    and used Fuckupshima fear to get the masses to vote for it.

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their own people by fracking
    and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs automatically.

    How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought that was the Germans who are killing the deal because of the invasion of the Ukraine?


    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low IQ followers buying that
    and look at the 'size' of the land they stole from the native Americans

    Which nutcase President are you referring to exactly? Saying "nutcase" doesn't narrow it down so much.


    you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the rest of the world.
    I am not sure such a scenario can now be excluded.
    If you do the maaz that is.
    Us neural nets .. AI deployed..
    Maybe that vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too.
    Yea man,

    You truly are strange, dude!

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Feb 24 06:33:28 2022
    Jan Panteltje <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in news:sv7782$ar6$1@dont-email.me:

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning
    their own people by fracking and selling it to Europe it (US)
    self-destructs automatically.

    You're a goddamned idiot.

    Add a nutcase president who now
    blames US inflation on Russia and his low IQ followers buying that
    and look at the 'size' of the land they stole from the native
    Americans you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack
    from the rest of the world.

    You are also a fool. Conquest was the order of the day at that
    time. The current situation is about invasion of sovereign nations.
    The US was not a soveriegn nation then, and the native American
    tribes which were here are not different than the African tribes and
    lands conquested back when they were. But nuking? Yeah, you are as
    stupid as it gets, chump.

    If only retards like you could eat some fast moving lead as the
    nuke you bark about.

    I am not sure such a scenario can now
    be excluded. If you do the maaz that is.
    Us neural nets .. AI deployed..
    Maybe that vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too.
    Yea man,

    You are almost as retarded as Trump is. Somebody over there should
    come grab you up and put you in a rubber room, away from all
    technology and media. Bet that would ruffle your retarded feathers.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Feb 24 09:36:18 2022
    On 24/02/2022 07:40, Rick C wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
    wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:


    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of
    poverty, the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take
    a lot to improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water,
    enough heat to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative
    experiment.
    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've
    tried to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a
    decade and many billions over budget. I guess if they keep building
    plants like those they will end up a third world country and we will
    have to send them aid.


    I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in France,
    but they get over 70% of their electricity from nuclear power, and are a
    big exporter of electricity. They must be doing /something/ right.


    Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US
    pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?) and used Fuckupshima
    fear to get the masses to vote for it.

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning
    their own people by fracking and selling it to Europe it (US)
    self-destructs automatically.

    How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought
    that was the Germans who are killing the deal because of the invasion
    of the Ukraine?


    The US has been against Northstream 2 since its inception. Russia's
    export of gas to Europe is a significant source of income for Russia -
    of course the USA has always been against it. Germany has resisted this American pressure, however - since they stupidly closed their nuclear
    power plants they have had little choice but to buy Russian gas. They
    are now pausing (but not irrevocably killing) the Northstream 2 project
    because of Russia's actions in Ukraine.


    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and
    his low IQ followers buying that and look at the 'size' of the land
    they stole from the native Americans

    Which nutcase President are you referring to exactly? Saying
    "nutcase" doesn't narrow it down so much.


    :-)


    you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the rest
    of the world. I am not sure such a scenario can now be excluded. If
    you do the maaz that is. Us neural nets .. AI deployed.. Maybe that
    vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too. Yea man,

    You truly are strange, dude!


    Indeed!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Thu Feb 24 09:58:57 2022
    On 24/02/2022 05:34, Mike Monett wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    [...]

    Fusion is Fraud

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
    never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
    this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it >>> will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost >>> of renewable sources like solar and wind.

    The tokamak versions don't look promising, except as giant money
    sinks. Some other form of fusion might be practical.

    Fantastic breakthroughs are announced regularly. Stock shares increase in value, which are then sold off at huge profit. Nothing more is heard of the breakthrough, until a new breakthrough is announced. The cycle repeats.

    This is the classical pump and dump scheme.

    The big fusion research facilities (Tokamak and others) are not
    commercial. There are no stocks and no profits. There is pressure to
    get results to help keep the funding, but it is not remotely "pump and
    dump". Negative results - finding out what doesn't work, and where the problems lie - is part of the goals of the projects.


    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot melt down. They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

    TMSR's are walk-away safe. A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of
    power. The molten salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators. The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is over.


    Yes, there are many advantages of this kind of design. They also don't
    produce plutonium or bomb-grade uranium, they get about two orders of
    magnitude more electricity out of the fuel than current uranium
    reactors. The waste is not only correspondingly smaller in quantity, it
    is not nearly as unpleasant.

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly
    nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.


    Yes.

    And if you have enough electricity from clearer sources, there are
    better uses of natural gas than burning it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Thu Feb 24 10:22:33 2022
    On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
    wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    Fission is sensible but scares people.
    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to
    Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot
    melt down.

    But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you will
    find out the hard way. Melting isn't the problem - producing heat
    that you can't get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because the
    diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant got
    flooded and stopped working.


    Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to avoid
    a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have a design
    that can't melt, you don't have the same kind of problem. With a TMSR,
    even the worst combination of failures does not result in an explosion
    or the release of radioactive elements.

    There are some other technical challenges with TMSR's - no one is
    claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications will
    be found as the current batch of experimental and research work
    continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current uranium
    reactors (which are themselves much safer than older plants, such as Fukushima).


    They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste
    products are commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium,
    neodymium and molebdenum.

    Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
    waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you have
    with a regular nuclear reactor.


    No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium reactor. (That
    doesn't mean that getting useful metals out of it is necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of the waste compared to conventional reactors.

    Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it can
    undergo nuclear fission.

    Yes, that's the point - that's what makes it safe.


    TMSR's are walk-away safe.

    Until they aren't.

    What a silly thing to say.


    A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten salt
    drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators. The
    nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is over.

    If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have a
    way of preventing that - see Fukushima.


    It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
    remaining frozen but broke everything else! That's the point of this
    design it is "fail safe" - lots of things must be actively running in
    order for the fusion to continue. That is not the case with uranium.

    And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get flooded.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Layman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Feb 24 10:32:48 2022
    On 24/02/2022 08:36, David Brown wrote:

    I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in France,

    EDF, who are partially owned by the French government.

    They are currently building a nuclear power station in the UK (Hinkley
    C; it will have two reactors), and will probably build another here -
    Sizewell C, which will also have two reactors. Each is planned to
    provide power for 6 million homes.

    --

    Jeff

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Feb 24 11:04:30 2022
    On 24/02/22 08:36, David Brown wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 07:40, Rick C wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
    wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:


    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of
    poverty, the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take
    a lot to improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water,
    enough heat to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative
    experiment.
    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've
    tried to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a
    decade and many billions over budget. I guess if they keep building
    plants like those they will end up a third world country and we will
    have to send them aid.


    I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in France,
    but they get over 70% of their electricity from nuclear power, and are a
    big exporter of electricity. They must be doing /something/ right.


    Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US
    pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?) and used Fuckupshima
    fear to get the masses to vote for it.

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning
    their own people by fracking and selling it to Europe it (US)
    self-destructs automatically.

    How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought
    that was the Germans who are killing the deal because of the invasion
    of the Ukraine?


    The US has been against Northstream 2 since its inception. Russia's
    export of gas to Europe is a significant source of income for Russia -
    of course the USA has always been against it. Germany has resisted this American pressure, however - since they stupidly closed their nuclear
    power plants they have had little choice but to buy Russian gas. They
    are now pausing (but not irrevocably killing) the Northstream 2 project because of Russia's actions in Ukraine.

    When gas prices are low, the USA fracking operations are
    uneconomic. No gas through Nordstream 2 will increase the
    gas price in Europe and encourage them to look for other
    supplies - and you can guess the rest.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com on Thu Feb 24 11:03:48 2022
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in <b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to >>
    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount >>
    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" >>
    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is. >>

    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse

    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,

    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
    the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
    to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.
    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried >to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many >billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they >will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

    France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
    Look up Euratom too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

    'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
    as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.
    And with a commander like that .. maybe he byethen cannot even read that.

    Remember that Pakistani guy who worked there and took the centrifuge knowledge with him to Pakistan
    and was a hero there as he gave them the bomb?

    Man in my highschool physics classes I had to calculate one! Teacher was into it.
    Any kid can do it, given the hardware and Euros, (not dooolaars, those are worth nothing now anymore)..


    Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US pressure ( >fear of Germany making a bomb?)
    and used Fuckupshima fear to get the masses to vote for it.

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their own >people by fracking
    and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs automatically.

    How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought that was >the Germans who are killing the deal because of the invasion of the Ukraine?

    It has been sabotaged by the US for years, US sanctioned the companies working on it
    used extensive lobbying against it, used silly arguments like 'it made Europe depend on Russia'

    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low
    IQ followers buying that
    and look at the 'size' of the land they stole from the native Americans

    Which
    nutcase President are you referring to exactly? Saying "nutcase" doesn't >narrow it down so much.

    True, I mean the one that appeared on teefee lately and tried the religious clown thing
    'how in the name of Christ can they do that sort of thing'
    trying to get an 'Uncle Sam Needs You' of the ground to get rid of all the blacks and whites in a war he cannot win like Vietnam..
    To unite... Old trick: create a common enemy... History and Hysteria repeats itself
    Biden is a dangerous nutcase and so are his puppeteers



    you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the rest of the >world.
    I am not sure such a scenario can now be excluded.
    If you do the maaz that is.
    Us neural nets .. AI deployed..
    Maybe that vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too.
    Yea man,

    You truly are strange, dude!

    As I have pointed out before, you humming beans are brought here by storks,
    I was likely dropped by a flying cup and saucer, that was obvious from the beginning

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Feb 24 03:40:30 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:22:43 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
    wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to
    Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot
    melt down.

    But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you will
    find out the hard way. Melting isn't the problem - producing heat
    that you can't get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because the
    diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant got
    flooded and stopped working.

    Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to avoid
    a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have a design
    that can't melt, you don't have the same kind of problem.

    There are others.

    With a TMSR, even the worst combination of failures does not result in an explosion or the release of radioactive elements.

    It might not result in an explosion, but if the molten salt get hot enough to melt it's container, the radioactive elements will escape.

    And there really isn't an upper limit to the temperatures you can get get if a nuclear reactor runs away - volatilise the molten salts and it could look very like an explosion.

    There are some other technical challenges with TMSR's - no one is
    claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications will
    be found as the current batch of experimental and research work
    continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current uranium reactors (which are themselves much safer than older plants, such as Fukushima).

    They may be safer, but they aren't all that safe.The worst case nuclear accident is somebody dropping an atomic bomb on a reactor, and a thorium reactor would offer much the same mass of radioactive matrerial to be dispersed.

    They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode.The waste
    products are commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium,
    neodymium and molebdenum.

    Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
    waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you have
    with a regular nuclear reactor.

    No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium reactor. (That doesn't mean that getting useful metals out of it is necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of the waste compared to conventional reactors.

    In fact it is equally problematic, but there is less of it. We still haven't got any kind of longer term repository for radioactive waste and we've been generating it for about eighty years now. It may be a small problem, but like the very small baby, it
    isn't one that you can ignore.

    Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it can
    undergo nuclear fission.

    Yes, that's the point - that's what makes it safe.

    But what you end up with is just as dangerous as the products of splitting U-235. You don't transmute loads of U-238 in the process, so it may be somewhat less dangerous, but it isn't remotely safe.

    TMSR's are walk-away safe.

    Until they aren't.

    What a silly thing to say.

    Everybody says that stuff is "walk-away safe" until some unanticipated problem comes up

    A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten salt
    drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators. The
    nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is over.

    If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have a
    way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

    It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug remaining frozen but broke everything else!

    If it blocked the drain path, melting the plug wouldn't serve any useful purpose.

    That's the point of this design it is "fail safe" - lots of things must be actively running in order for the fission to continue. That is not the case with uranium.

    Since it depends on splitting U-233 rather than U-235, this isn't entirely obvious.

    And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get flooded.

    That's one lesson. Each new disaster teaches us another.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Thu Feb 24 06:52:59 2022
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:04:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened >jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in ><p1td1hpe3sotvri1h2g8mrjkalnvrcs6ld@4ax.com>:

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to >>>>>> reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>>>> But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount >>>>>> of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" >>>>>> energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is. >>>>>
    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse
    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, >>>sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
    the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
    to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.

    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.
    Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?)
    and used Fuckupshima fear to get the masses to vote for it.

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their own people by fracking
    and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs automatically.

    NG is wonderful and fracking is great. What a gift.

    We might sell some LNG to Germany now and then, when they are freezing
    in the dark and we don't have any better offers.

    France might make them a deal on leftover electricity too.

    We need to form OFEG, the Organization For Extorting Germans.


    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low IQ followers buying that
    and look at the 'size' of the land they stole from the native Americans

    I was just reading about the tribal behavior of the Plains natives.
    They didn't exactly live in harmony.

    That lead to a conjecture: wars are started over access to
    high-quality protein, namely meat.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Thu Feb 24 16:09:26 2022
    On 24/02/2022 12:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:22:43 PM UTC+11, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
    wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to
    Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and
    cannot melt down.

    But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you
    will find out the hard way. Melting isn't the problem - producing
    heat that you can't get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because
    the diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant
    got flooded and stopped working.

    Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to
    avoid a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have
    a design that can't melt, you don't have the same kind of problem.

    There are others.

    With a TMSR, even the worst combination of failures does not result
    in an explosion or the release of radioactive elements.

    It might not result in an explosion, but if the molten salt get hot
    enough to melt it's container, the radioactive elements will escape.

    And there really isn't an upper limit to the temperatures you can get
    get if a nuclear reactor runs away - volatilise the molten salts and
    it could look very like an explosion.

    Thorium itself cannot sustain a fission reaction. As you noted
    yourself, it needs a slow neutron to turn it into uranium, which can
    then decay. If it is spread out enough, there is no way that enough
    neutrons from decaying uranium can activate enough thorium to end up
    sustaining a reaction. Drop the molten thorium salt into a container
    (it's /not/ hard to make a container that will withstand far higher temperatures than those in the reactor, and also withstand an earthquake
    - re-enforced concrete will be fine). Gravity will spread the splat,
    and the reaction stops.

    You have a bit of cleaning up to do, scraping up the solidified and
    somewhat radioactive mess. But it is all contained and safe, and you
    can probably just melt it again and put it back in once you are running
    again.


    There are some other technical challenges with TMSR's - no one is
    claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications
    will be found as the current batch of experimental and research
    work continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current
    uranium reactors (which are themselves much safer than older
    plants, such as Fukushima).

    They may be safer, but they aren't all that safe.The worst case
    nuclear accident is somebody dropping an atomic bomb on a reactor,
    and a thorium reactor would offer much the same mass of radioactive
    matrerial to be dispersed.

    You are /really/ scraping the barrel here. You think that if you drop
    an atomic bomb on the reactor, it's the reactor that's the problem?
    Seriously?

    Most of what is in the reactor is /thorium/. It's a safe metal - it's
    found all over the place in rocks. Scattering thorium around the site
    of a nuclear bomb detonation is not going to make the slightest difference.


    Sure, TMSR are not /completely/ safe. Nor is anything else in this
    world. But are you going to tell us how dangerous hydroelectric power
    is, since a big enough bomb will burst the damn?



    They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode.The
    waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon,
    zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

    Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
    waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you
    have with a regular nuclear reactor.

    No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far
    less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium
    reactor. (That doesn't mean that getting useful metals out of it is
    necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of
    the waste compared to conventional reactors.

    In fact it is equally problematic, but there is less of it.

    No, it is not. Please read up about this. Vastly more of the potential nuclear energy is used in TMSR reactors than conventional uranium
    reactors (perhaps because they are designed for that purpose, whereas conventional reactors were designed to make bomb-grade uranium and
    plutonium with electricity as a bonus side-effect). The waste isotopes
    do not have anything like the dangerous lifespans of the uranium reactor
    waste - we are talking 100 years rather than 10,000 years.

    We still
    haven't got any kind of longer term repository for radioactive waste
    and we've been generating it for about eighty years now. It may be a
    small problem, but like the very small baby, it isn't one that you
    can ignore.


    The world has done so quite happily so far. And it's a far more
    tractable problem than dealing with all the environmental poison and
    damage that comes from the fossil fuel industry. A typical coal-fired
    power station leaks more radioactive waste than a conventional nuclear
    power station, including its waste storage.

    Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture
    to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it
    can undergo nuclear fission.

    Yes, that's the point - that's what makes it safe.

    But what you end up with is just as dangerous as the products of
    splitting U-235. You don't transmute loads of U-238 in the process,
    so it may be somewhat less dangerous, but it isn't remotely safe.


    You need to read up on how this all works.

    (Note that you can also make uranium-powered facilities safer and more efficient than they are today, by using higher temperatures and molten
    salts to get much more of the power out of the same fuel. But thorium
    is better still.)


    TMSR's are walk-away safe.

    Until they aren't.

    What a silly thing to say.

    Everybody says that stuff is "walk-away safe" until some
    unanticipated problem comes up

    A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten
    salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators.
    The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
    over.

    If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have
    a way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

    It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
    remaining frozen but broke everything else!

    If it blocked the drain path, melting the plug wouldn't serve any
    useful purpose.


    This isn't rocket science. (There are other aspects that are
    technically and scientifically challenging, but this is not.) We know
    how powerful earthquakes can get. making a fundament and catch bowl
    that will survive the biggest feasible earthquake is simply a matter of spending enough money on the problem - and it's not a lot of money in
    the total budget.

    Of course, now you are going to tell us that it won't survive a dinosaur-killing meteor strike.

    That's the point of this design it is "fail safe" - lots of things
    must be actively running in order for the fission to continue.
    That is not the case with uranium.

    Since it depends on splitting U-233 rather than U-235, this isn't
    entirely obvious.

    And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put
    the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get
    flooded.

    That's one lesson. Each new disaster teaches us another.


    We are in the middle of a disaster. Wind and solar power is reducing it
    a little, but not enough.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 24 07:19:41 2022
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    [...]

    Fusion is Fraud

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
    never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of >>>this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it >>>will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost >>>of renewable sources like solar and wind.

    The tokamak versions don't look promising, except as giant money
    sinks. Some other form of fusion might be practical.

    Fantastic breakthroughs are announced regularly. Stock shares increase in >value, which are then sold off at huge profit. Nothing more is heard of the >breakthrough, until a new breakthrough is announced. The cycle repeats.

    This is the classical pump and dump scheme.

    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to Thorium >Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot melt down. They >operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste products are >commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

    TMSR's are walk-away safe. A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of
    power. The molten salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon >moderators. The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is >over.

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly
    nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    Excellent. We need more.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Thu Feb 24 07:17:29 2022
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C ><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in ><b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to >>>
    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount

    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"

    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse >>>
    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,

    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
    the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
    to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.
    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried >>to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many >>billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they >>will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

    France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
    Look up Euratom too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

    'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
    as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

    I know some bomb boys. That's preposterous.

    Harry said "There are so many safeguards, it's surprising that they
    can go off at all."



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Feb 24 07:18:55 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:36:29 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 07:40, Rick C wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
    wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of
    poverty, the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take
    a lot to improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water,
    enough heat to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative
    experiment.
    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've
    tried to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a
    decade and many billions over budget. I guess if they keep building
    plants like those they will end up a third world country and we will
    have to send them aid.

    I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in France,
    but they get over 70% of their electricity from nuclear power, and are a
    big exporter of electricity. They must be doing /something/ right.

    I believe we have more reactors in the US than France has. Here we find new reactors are horribly expensive and impossible to build in anything remotely like a schedule. France has the same problems. The fact that you are ignorant of this after having
    been discussed here many times speaks volumes. How many reactors were built in the 70s and 80s is irrelevant at this point. Surely you must understand that, n'est-ce pas?


    Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US
    pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?) and used Fuckupshima
    fear to get the masses to vote for it.

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning
    their own people by fracking and selling it to Europe it (US)
    self-destructs automatically.

    How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought
    that was the Germans who are killing the deal because of the invasion
    of the Ukraine?

    The US has been against Northstream 2 since its inception. Russia's
    export of gas to Europe is a significant source of income for Russia -
    of course the USA has always been against it. Germany has resisted this American pressure, however - since they stupidly closed their nuclear
    power plants they have had little choice but to buy Russian gas. They
    are now pausing (but not irrevocably killing) the Northstream 2 project because of Russia's actions in Ukraine.

    Yes, this is not about the US.


    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and
    his low IQ followers buying that and look at the 'size' of the land
    they stole from the native Americans

    Which nutcase President are you referring to exactly? Saying
    "nutcase" doesn't narrow it down so much.

    :-)

    you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the rest
    of the world. I am not sure such a scenario can now be excluded. If
    you do the maaz that is. Us neural nets .. AI deployed.. Maybe that
    vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too. Yea man,

    You truly are strange, dude!

    Indeed!

    Are you impersonating Teal'c of Chulak?

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Jeff Layman on Thu Feb 24 07:42:20 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 5:32:59 AM UTC-5, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 08:36, David Brown wrote:

    I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in France,
    EDF, who are partially owned by the French government.

    They are currently building a nuclear power station in the UK (Hinkley
    C; it will have two reactors), and will probably build another here - Sizewell C, which will also have two reactors. Each is planned to
    provide power for 6 million homes.

    The Hinkley facility and a couple of others EDF is building are horribly late and very over budget. The same problem that drove Westinghouse nuclear into bankruptcy.

    If a contractor had screwed up so badly on the last several jobs they did in your neighborhood, would you give them a deposit on an addition to your home? Instead of two months, they took two years? Instead of costing $10,000 they ended up costing $100,
    000? These are only slight exaggerations.

    In the UK, the investors were on the hook for the bill at Hinkley. They passed a new law that allows them to pass the overruns to the rate payers on all future nuclear projects. Otherwise the investors won't invest. That's the real death blow to
    nuclear. It's just too damn expensive with renewables coming down in price so much. You can expect your electric rates to go up in the UK if they build another nuclear plant.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Feb 24 07:30:35 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 4:22:43 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
    wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    Fission is sensible but scares people.
    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to
    Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot
    melt down.

    But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you will
    find out the hard way. Melting isn't the problem - producing heat
    that you can't get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because the
    diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant got
    flooded and stopped working.

    Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to avoid
    a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have a design
    that can't melt, you don't have the same kind of problem. With a TMSR,
    even the worst combination of failures does not result in an explosion
    or the release of radioactive elements.

    There are some other technical challenges with TMSR's - no one is
    claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications will
    be found as the current batch of experimental and research work
    continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current uranium reactors (which are themselves much safer than older plants, such as Fukushima).
    They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste
    products are commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium,
    neodymium and molebdenum.

    Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
    waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you have
    with a regular nuclear reactor.

    No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium reactor. (That doesn't mean that getting useful metals out of it is necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of the waste compared to conventional reactors.
    Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it can
    undergo nuclear fission.
    Yes, that's the point - that's what makes it safe.

    TMSR's are walk-away safe.

    Until they aren't.
    What a silly thing to say.

    A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten salt
    drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators. The
    nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is over.

    If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have a
    way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

    It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
    remaining frozen but broke everything else! That's the point of this
    design it is "fail safe" - lots of things must be actively running in
    order for the fusion to continue. That is not the case with uranium.

    And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get flooded.

    TMSRs may not have the problem of meltdown, but that has never been the biggest problem with nuclear power. The real problem, the one that so seldom gets adequately addressed is the waste. A TMSR produces less waste, but as Bill is quick to point out,
    that is not really a solution, there's still significant waste.

    I find it amusing that one of the selling points of the small, modular reactors is that they are designed to not be refueled. Rather they run for 30 years and then are left, buried in the ground where they were installed. Yeah, like that's not going to
    raise any objections from the neighborhood.

    Nuclear is a problem that simply doesn't have good solutions. None. We are better off just facing up to that fact and moving on.

    Renewables are still new. We have lots and lots of room for improvement with them. I think that solution space should be adequately explored.

    Living in Puerto Rico, I've seen a number of wind turbines. The island has a breeze nearly all the time, so wind power is a pretty good solution. Some of the wind turbines were disabled by Maria. Now, four years later, few of them have been fixed.
    There are some very large machines along the southern coast near Ponce that are working, not sure if they were there during Maria or not. Clearly, there is less faith in wind power, or less money for investment. It's a shame as they need new,
    inexpensive sources of energy on the island.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Feb 24 08:11:07 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 10:09:38 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 12:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:22:43 PM UTC+11, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
    wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to
    Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and
    cannot melt down.

    But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you
    will find out the hard way. Melting isn't the problem - producing
    heat that you can't get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because
    the diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant
    got flooded and stopped working.

    Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to
    avoid a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have
    a design that can't melt, you don't have the same kind of problem.

    There are others.

    With a TMSR, even the worst combination of failures does not result
    in an explosion or the release of radioactive elements.

    It might not result in an explosion, but if the molten salt get hot
    enough to melt it's container, the radioactive elements will escape.

    And there really isn't an upper limit to the temperatures you can get
    get if a nuclear reactor runs away - volatilise the molten salts and
    it could look very like an explosion.
    Thorium itself cannot sustain a fission reaction. As you noted
    yourself, it needs a slow neutron to turn it into uranium, which can
    then decay. If it is spread out enough, there is no way that enough
    neutrons from decaying uranium can activate enough thorium to end up sustaining a reaction. Drop the molten thorium salt into a container
    (it's /not/ hard to make a container that will withstand far higher temperatures than those in the reactor, and also withstand an earthquake
    - re-enforced concrete will be fine). Gravity will spread the splat,
    and the reaction stops.

    You have a bit of cleaning up to do, scraping up the solidified and
    somewhat radioactive mess. But it is all contained and safe, and you
    can probably just melt it again and put it back in once you are running again.

    LOL! Yes, you won't have a run away reactor, but you won't have a reactor anymore. The solidified salt will still be very radioactive and there's no way you are going to recover that reactor. The safety valve is a one time thing, like ejecting from a
    fighter jet. You won't be recovering the facility. Don't try to fool me even if you can fool yourself.


    There are some other technical challenges with TMSR's - no one is
    claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications
    will be found as the current batch of experimental and research
    work continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current
    uranium reactors (which are themselves much safer than older
    plants, such as Fukushima).

    They may be safer, but they aren't all that safe.The worst case
    nuclear accident is somebody dropping an atomic bomb on a reactor,
    and a thorium reactor would offer much the same mass of radioactive matrerial to be dispersed.
    You are /really/ scraping the barrel here. You think that if you drop
    an atomic bomb on the reactor, it's the reactor that's the problem? Seriously?

    Most of what is in the reactor is /thorium/. It's a safe metal - it's
    found all over the place in rocks. Scattering thorium around the site
    of a nuclear bomb detonation is not going to make the slightest difference.

    Most, other than the various radionuclides.


    Sure, TMSR are not /completely/ safe. Nor is anything else in this
    world. But are you going to tell us how dangerous hydroelectric power
    is, since a big enough bomb will burst the damn?

    This is a side issue. The real problem is the radioactive waste... and the cost. So far, no one has operated a TMSR and so we don't know the cost of construction or operation.


    They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode.The
    waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon,
    zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

    Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
    waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you
    have with a regular nuclear reactor.

    No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far
    less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium
    reactor. (That doesn't mean that getting useful metals out of it is
    necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of
    the waste compared to conventional reactors.

    In fact it is equally problematic, but there is less of it.
    No, it is not. Please read up about this. Vastly more of the potential nuclear energy is used in TMSR reactors than conventional uranium
    reactors (perhaps because they are designed for that purpose, whereas conventional reactors were designed to make bomb-grade uranium and
    plutonium with electricity as a bonus side-effect). The waste isotopes
    do not have anything like the dangerous lifespans of the uranium reactor waste - we are talking 100 years rather than 10,000 years.
    We still
    haven't got any kind of longer term repository for radioactive waste
    and we've been generating it for about eighty years now. It may be a
    small problem, but like the very small baby, it isn't one that you
    can ignore.

    The world has done so quite happily so far. And it's a far more
    tractable problem than dealing with all the environmental poison and
    damage that comes from the fossil fuel industry. A typical coal-fired
    power station leaks more radioactive waste than a conventional nuclear
    power station, including its waste storage.

    That seems a specious argument. The radioactive waste statement is meaningless. The hazard in radioactive waste is in the potential for accidents or use as weapons and the cost of the long term storage.


    Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture
    to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it
    can undergo nuclear fission.

    Yes, that's the point - that's what makes it safe.

    But what you end up with is just as dangerous as the products of
    splitting U-235. You don't transmute loads of U-238 in the process,
    so it may be somewhat less dangerous, but it isn't remotely safe.

    You need to read up on how this all works.

    (Note that you can also make uranium-powered facilities safer and more efficient than they are today, by using higher temperatures and molten
    salts to get much more of the power out of the same fuel. But thorium
    is better still.)

    Being stabbed in the gut is better than being shot in the head. Not a meaningful statement.


    TMSR's are walk-away safe.

    Until they aren't.

    What a silly thing to say.

    Everybody says that stuff is "walk-away safe" until some
    unanticipated problem comes up

    A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten
    salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators.
    The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
    over.

    If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have
    a way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

    It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
    remaining frozen but broke everything else!

    If it blocked the drain path, melting the plug wouldn't serve any
    useful purpose.

    This isn't rocket science. (There are other aspects that are
    technically and scientifically challenging, but this is not.) We know
    how powerful earthquakes can get. making a fundament and catch bowl
    that will survive the biggest feasible earthquake is simply a matter of spending enough money on the problem - and it's not a lot of money in
    the total budget.

    No, we don't. The earthquake that shut down the two reactors at North Anna was twice as powerful as the plant was designed to handle. Of course, even the design goal was higher than the largest quake expected. The result was the diesel generators
    firing up to power the circulating pumps, but one of the generators failed. When they researched why, the found the procedure for head gasket installation was incorrect. This was a single point of failure because this procedure was used on all the
    generators and they all could have failed.

    The tsunami that killed Fukushima was larger than anything they expected and the additional buffer.

    These are such obvious failures in the concept of "safe" nuclear power that it is surprising everyone didn't respond like Germany did.


    Of course, now you are going to tell us that it won't survive a dinosaur-killing meteor strike.
    That's the point of this design it is "fail safe" - lots of things
    must be actively running in order for the fission to continue.
    That is not the case with uranium.

    Since it depends on splitting U-233 rather than U-235, this isn't
    entirely obvious.

    And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put
    the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get
    flooded.

    That's one lesson. Each new disaster teaches us another.

    We are in the middle of a disaster. Wind and solar power is reducing it
    a little, but not enough.

    So we can't use more wind, solar and hydro? Last time I checked that was the plan.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 24 16:53:00 2022
    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:17:29 -0800) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <678f1hlkgem87advn3icb1kuskua3ulejm@4ax.com>:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in >><b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>

    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount

    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"

    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse >>>>
    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, >>>>
    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
    the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
    to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment. >>>> That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried >>>to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
    billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they >>>will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

    France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
    Look up Euratom too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

    'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
    as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

    I know some bomb boys. That's preposterous.

    Harry said "There are so many safeguards, it's surprising that they
    can go off at all."

    My boss back a long time ago told me he knew one of those guys working
    on the US bomb here, the guy told him he dropped a PCB board or something in it while doing maintenance and never understood why it did not go off...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Thu Feb 24 09:30:36 2022
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:53:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:17:29 -0800) it happened >jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in ><678f1hlkgem87advn3icb1kuskua3ulejm@4ax.com>:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >>><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in >>><b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>

    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount

    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"

    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse >>>>>
    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, >>>>>
    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty, >>>>> >the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat >>>>> >to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment. >>>>> That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried >>>>to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
    billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they >>>>will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

    France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
    Look up Euratom too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

    'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
    as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

    I know some bomb boys. That's preposterous.

    Harry said "There are so many safeguards, it's surprising that they
    can go off at all."

    My boss back a long time ago told me he knew one of those guys working
    on the US bomb here, the guy told him he dropped a PCB board or something in it
    while doing maintenance and never understood why it did not go off...

    It's very complex to set off an implosion bomb. Nanoseconds matter.

    The neutron initiators are independently interlocked. If they don't
    work, you get a fizzle.

    I don't think a nuke has ever detonated accidentally. Lots of gadgets
    have failed to go.

    Ted Taylor designed a bomb that absolutely failed to work.

    https://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore/dp/0374515980



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Feb 24 09:47:20 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 11:54:52 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:17:29 -0800) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <678f1hlkgem87advn...@4ax.com>:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >><gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in >><b80bd97d-0c86-4b30...@googlegroups.com>:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>

    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount

    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"

    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse

    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, >>>>
    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty, >>>> >the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat >>>> >to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment. >>>> That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried >>>to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
    billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they >>>will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

    France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
    Look up Euratom too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

    'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
    as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

    I know some bomb boys. That's preposterous.

    Harry said "There are so many safeguards, it's surprising that they
    can go off at all."
    My boss back a long time ago told me he knew one of those guys working
    on the US bomb here, the guy told him he dropped a PCB board or something in it
    while doing maintenance and never understood why it did not go off...

    I think the key part of that is "didn't understand".

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 24 10:03:04 2022
    torsdag den 24. februar 2022 kl. 18.30.51 UTC+1 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:53:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:17:29 -0800) it happened >jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <678f1hlkgem87advn...@4ax.com>:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >>><gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in >>><b80bd97d-0c86-4b30...@googlegroups.com>:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>

    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount

    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"

    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse

    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, >>>>>
    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty, >>>>> >the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat >>>>> >to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment. >>>>> That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried >>>>to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
    billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they
    will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

    France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
    Look up Euratom too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

    'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
    as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

    I know some bomb boys. That's preposterous.

    Harry said "There are so many safeguards, it's surprising that they
    can go off at all."

    My boss back a long time ago told me he knew one of those guys working
    on the US bomb here, the guy told him he dropped a PCB board or something in it
    while doing maintenance and never understood why it did not go off...
    It's very complex to set off an implosion bomb. Nanoseconds matter.

    The neutron initiators are independently interlocked. If they don't
    work, you get a fizzle.

    I don't think a nuke has ever detonated accidentally. Lots of gadgets
    have failed to go.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to gnuarm.del...@gmail.com on Thu Feb 24 10:13:20 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:19:06 AM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

    I believe we have more reactors in the US than France has. Here we find new reactors are horribly expensive and impossible to build in anything remotely like a schedule.

    But, that's not true; nuclear sub contracts all include new reactors, and haven't had years-long
    holdups at all. The problems might be soluble, with newer-than-1980 designs, but the
    entrenched idea that 'impossible to build' applies to anything nuclear, is a killer for anything
    that requires a long-term bond issue.

    Until someone builds and operates a few modern reactors for electricity production, we don't
    KNOW how expensive they are, or how well they work.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Monett@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 24 17:39:34 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    [...]

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly
    nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    Excellent. We need more.

    We don't need the temperature rise.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Rick C on Thu Feb 24 19:19:31 2022
    On 24/02/2022 16:18, Rick C wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:36:29 AM UTC-5, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 07:40, Rick C wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
    wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of
    poverty, the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't
    take a lot to improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean
    running water, enough heat to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative
    experiment.
    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear
    plants 70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes
    they've tried to build have been a total disaster with schedule
    delays of a decade and many billions over budget. I guess if they
    keep building plants like those they will end up a third world
    country and we will have to send them aid.

    I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in
    France, but they get over 70% of their electricity from nuclear
    power, and are a big exporter of electricity. They must be doing
    /something/ right.

    I believe we have more reactors in the US than France has. Here we
    find new reactors are horribly expensive and impossible to build in
    anything remotely like a schedule. France has the same problems.
    The fact that you are ignorant of this after having been discussed
    here many times speaks volumes. How many reactors were built in the
    70s and 80s is irrelevant at this point. Surely you must understand
    that, n'est-ce pas?


    France is second only to the USA in nuclear power generated - as a
    proportion of its power, it has more than any other country.

    I agree that new reactors always seem to cost far more and take far
    longer to build than planned - I have no idea how it is possible to get
    things wrong so often. But it does not mean building new plants is the
    wrong thing to do.

    Electricity prices in Europe have gone through the roof in recent times.
    They have doubled in the last year - with peak prices getting several
    times that. Europe simply doesn't make enough electricity, and wind
    farms will not cover the needs. There isn't enough space for big enough
    wind parks or solar power generation. Europe is going to have to build
    nuclear power stations, and with the price of electricity, they will be cost-effective.


    Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US
    pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?) and used
    Fuckupshima fear to get the masses to vote for it.

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and
    poisoning their own people by fracking and selling it to Europe
    it (US) self-destructs automatically.

    How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought
    that was the Germans who are killing the deal because of the
    invasion of the Ukraine?

    The US has been against Northstream 2 since its inception. Russia's
    export of gas to Europe is a significant source of income for
    Russia - of course the USA has always been against it. Germany has
    resisted this American pressure, however - since they stupidly
    closed their nuclear power plants they have had little choice but
    to buy Russian gas. They are now pausing (but not irrevocably
    killing) the Northstream 2 project because of Russia's actions in
    Ukraine.

    Yes, this is not about the US.

    Well, no - but that won't stop the US having an opinion and trying to
    influence it! (I'm not condemning the US for that - politics is a
    global game.)



    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia
    and his low IQ followers buying that and look at the 'size' of
    the land they stole from the native Americans

    Which nutcase President are you referring to exactly? Saying
    "nutcase" doesn't narrow it down so much.

    :-)

    you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the
    rest of the world. I am not sure such a scenario can now be
    excluded. If you do the maaz that is. Us neural nets .. AI
    deployed.. Maybe that vulcano in that national park wants a
    word to say too. Yea man,

    You truly are strange, dude!

    Indeed!

    Are you impersonating Teal'c of Chulak?


    No, at least not intentionally. I haven't followed Stargate much.
    (It's probably a series I would watch, if it happens to turn up on our
    TV or Netflix. But there isn't time to watch everything.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Feb 24 10:29:55 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:19:42 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 16:18, Rick C wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:36:29 AM UTC-5, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 07:40, Rick C wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
    wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of
    poverty, the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't
    take a lot to improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean
    running water, enough heat to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative
    experiment.
    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear
    plants 70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes
    they've tried to build have been a total disaster with schedule
    delays of a decade and many billions over budget. I guess if they
    keep building plants like those they will end up a third world
    country and we will have to send them aid.

    I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in
    France, but they get over 70% of their electricity from nuclear
    power, and are a big exporter of electricity. They must be doing
    /something/ right.

    I believe we have more reactors in the US than France has. Here we
    find new reactors are horribly expensive and impossible to build in anything remotely like a schedule. France has the same problems.
    The fact that you are ignorant of this after having been discussed
    here many times speaks volumes. How many reactors were built in the
    70s and 80s is irrelevant at this point. Surely you must understand
    that, n'est-ce pas?

    France is second only to the USA in nuclear power generated - as a
    proportion of its power, it has more than any other country.

    Which means nothing.


    I agree that new reactors always seem to cost far more and take far
    longer to build than planned - I have no idea how it is possible to get things wrong so often. But it does not mean building new plants is the
    wrong thing to do.

    It means exactly that! This is why no one will attempt a nuclear construction project without government loan guarantees. If the people making money on the projects don't believe it can be pulled off, why should we?


    Electricity prices in Europe have gone through the roof in recent times.
    They have doubled in the last year - with peak prices getting several
    times that. Europe simply doesn't make enough electricity, and wind
    farms will not cover the needs. There isn't enough space for big enough
    wind parks or solar power generation. Europe is going to have to build nuclear power stations, and with the price of electricity, they will be cost-effective.

    The idea of there not being enough space for renewable power generation is pretty much BS. Sorry, but you are just making up stuff now.


    Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US
    pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?) and used
    Fuckupshima fear to get the masses to vote for it.

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and
    poisoning their own people by fracking and selling it to Europe
    it (US) self-destructs automatically.

    How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought
    that was the Germans who are killing the deal because of the
    invasion of the Ukraine?

    The US has been against Northstream 2 since its inception. Russia's
    export of gas to Europe is a significant source of income for
    Russia - of course the USA has always been against it. Germany has
    resisted this American pressure, however - since they stupidly
    closed their nuclear power plants they have had little choice but
    to buy Russian gas. They are now pausing (but not irrevocably
    killing) the Northstream 2 project because of Russia's actions in
    Ukraine.

    Yes, this is not about the US.
    Well, no - but that won't stop the US having an opinion and trying to influence it! (I'm not condemning the US for that - politics is a
    global game.)

    Everyone has opinions. Whatever.


    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia
    and his low IQ followers buying that and look at the 'size' of
    the land they stole from the native Americans

    Which nutcase President are you referring to exactly? Saying
    "nutcase" doesn't narrow it down so much.

    :-)

    you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the
    rest of the world. I am not sure such a scenario can now be
    excluded. If you do the maaz that is. Us neural nets .. AI
    deployed.. Maybe that vulcano in that national park wants a
    word to say too. Yea man,

    You truly are strange, dude!

    Indeed!

    Are you impersonating Teal'c of Chulak?

    No, at least not intentionally. I haven't followed Stargate much.
    (It's probably a series I would watch, if it happens to turn up on our
    TV or Netflix. But there isn't time to watch everything.)

    That was his catch phrase. He was the strong silent type, so his universal reply was a deep, resonating, "Indeed." I use it myself a lot when I want to reply without saying anything.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to gnuarm.del...@gmail.com on Thu Feb 24 10:25:02 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:11:18 AM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

    The tsunami that killed Fukushima was larger than anything they expected and the additional buffer.
    ...
    And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put
    the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get
    flooded.

    It WASN'T a spot likely to get flooded; a magnitude-9 quake and tens of thousands of folk dead
    by the tsunami were the major effects of that disaster, the nuclear cleanup was a tiny little
    blip on the total. A simple design feature allows standard fire-truck pumps to be pressed
    into service in emergency, nowadays; that fault has been engineered away.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 24 10:23:48 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:13:31 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:19:06 AM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

    I believe we have more reactors in the US than France has. Here we find new reactors are horribly expensive and impossible to build in anything remotely like a schedule.
    But, that's not true; nuclear sub contracts all include new reactors, and haven't had years-long
    holdups at all. The problems might be soluble, with newer-than-1980 designs, but the
    entrenched idea that 'impossible to build' applies to anything nuclear, is a killer for anything
    that requires a long-term bond issue.

    That is a pointless comparison. I don't concede that Naval contracts don't overrun or come in late. It's simply a false comparison.


    Until someone builds and operates a few modern reactors for electricity production, we don't
    KNOW how expensive they are, or how well they work.

    WTF are you talking about? How about the vastly over budget and schedules so bungled, they can't even predict if it will be compete in three months or six? Vogtle's two reactors are six years late and $16 billion OVER the original number of $14 billion.
    A similar project in South Carolina failed, ending up with numerous entities in bankruptcy or suffering massive losses. Lather, rinse, repeat for the various projects EDF is behind.

    Unless by "modern" you mean a reactor design that has never been built or approved. Yeah, there are lots of those. Too many to count. Why don't we build one of each, just as a test?

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 24 18:36:54 2022
    On 24/02/22 18:13, whit3rd wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:19:06 AM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

    I believe we have more reactors in the US than France has. Here we find new reactors are horribly expensive and impossible to build in anything remotely like a schedule.

    But, that's not true; nuclear sub contracts all include new reactors, and haven't had years-long
    holdups at all. The problems might be soluble, with newer-than-1980 designs, but the
    entrenched idea that 'impossible to build' applies to anything nuclear, is a killer for anything
    that requires a long-term bond issue.

    Until someone builds and operates a few modern reactors for electricity production, we don't
    KNOW how expensive they are, or how well they work.

    This is progressing in the UK with small modular reactors (SMRs).
    From: https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/02/could-nuclear-power-help-get-us-to-net-zero/

    Kwarteng announced £210m in government funding for SMR development in November.
    This is to be backed by £250m in private investment from a consortium led by experienced reactor builder Rolls-Royce.

    As the name suggests, SMRs are factory-built and then transported to and assembled on existing sites or others that can be made suitable without massive civil engineering. The goal is to require foundations that are only 20-30 per cent of those for a Hinkley-like build, with much of the work going into creating an aseismic bearing for safety and so that the reactor does not require
    design changes.

    Another important difference with SMRs is capacity. Hinkley C and Sizewell C are
    3,200MWe-capacity projects. The SMRs proposed by Rolls-Royce are in the 220-440MWe range, equivalent to 150 wind turbines or an older coal-fired station.

    Rolls-Royce’s SMR concept is based on process innovation. Its SMRs will use existing PWR technology with progressive cost savings achieved through replication. The consortium is then looking to make deployments much more quickly by telescoping a historically linear set of approvals processes for technology, safety, and location into one that conducts all three simultaneously.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 24 19:42:12 2022
    On 24/02/2022 19:25, whit3rd wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:11:18 AM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

    The tsunami that killed Fukushima was larger than anything they expected and the additional buffer.
    ...
    And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put
    the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get
    flooded.

    It WASN'T a spot likely to get flooded; a magnitude-9 quake and tens of thousands of folk dead
    by the tsunami were the major effects of that disaster, the nuclear cleanup was a tiny little
    blip on the total. A simple design feature allows standard fire-truck pumps to be pressed
    into service in emergency, nowadays; that fault has been engineered away.


    Yes, the biggest problem (and by far the biggest cause of death) at the Fukushima nuclear plant was the panic and overreaction. And even that
    was small compared to the "conventional" damage of the earthquake and
    tsunami.

    But it was silly to put the diesel generators so low down that they were flooded. Supporting external fire engine pumps as a backup sounds like
    a good idea.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 24 18:43:19 2022
    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:30:36 -0800) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <koff1h9mfs694dbmp1t8fl0maqep16ogpq@4ax.com>:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:53:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:17:29 -0800) it happened >>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in >><678f1hlkgem87advn3icb1kuskua3ulejm@4ax.com>:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >>>><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in >>>><b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>

    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount

    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"

    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse

    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, >>>>>>
    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty, >>>>>> >the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat >>>>>> >to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment. >>>>>> That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried
    to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
    billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they
    will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

    France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
    Look up Euratom too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

    'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
    as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

    I know some bomb boys. That's preposterous.

    Harry said "There are so many safeguards, it's surprising that they
    can go off at all."

    My boss back a long time ago told me he knew one of those guys working
    on the US bomb here, the guy told him he dropped a PCB board or something in it
    while doing maintenance and never understood why it did not go off...

    It's very complex to set off an implosion bomb. Nanoseconds matter.

    The neutron initiators are independently interlocked. If they don't
    work, you get a fizzle.

    I don't think a nuke has ever detonated accidentally. Lots of gadgets
    have failed to go.

    Ted Taylor designed a bomb that absolutely failed to work.

    https://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore/dp/0374515980

    I have not read that book, but for example making a dirty nuclear bomb is not that hard.
    You can pollute a large area with a few dollars worth..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahnhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

    My uncle had a jewel store, and was also repairing and selling watches with radium covered hands.
    One day all those watches had to be taken out and could no longer be sold due to the radioactivity
    of those watch-hands.
    I had one as a present...
    Once I found a lot of green glassware in the attic at my parents home, mother told me
    I used to drink from it as a small kid, until somebody told her that uranium glass was dangerous.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_glass
    We had light switches with radium knobs that lighted green.
    Radiation.. we had Chernobyl fallout here too.
    The air filters from the aircos where I worked had to be replaced because those were hot on the Geiger counter.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Thu Feb 24 19:03:03 2022
    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 18:36:54 +0000) it happened Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in <sv8j86$he$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 24/02/22 18:13, whit3rd wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:19:06 AM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:

    I believe we have more reactors in the US than France has. Here we find new reactors are horribly expensive and impossible to
    build in anything remotely like a schedule.

    But, that's not true; nuclear sub contracts all include new reactors, and haven't had years-long
    holdups at all. The problems might be soluble, with newer-than-1980 designs, but the
    entrenched idea that 'impossible to build' applies to anything nuclear, is a killer for anything
    that requires a long-term bond issue.

    Until someone builds and operates a few modern reactors for electricity production, we don't
    KNOW how expensive they are, or how well they work.

    This is progressing in the UK with small modular reactors (SMRs).
    From: >https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/02/could-nuclear-power-help-get-us-to-net-zero/

    Kwarteng announced £210m in government funding for SMR development in November.
    This is to be backed by £250m in private investment from a consortium led by >experienced reactor builder Rolls-Royce.

    As the name suggests, SMRs are factory-built and then transported to and >assembled on existing sites or others that can be made suitable without massive
    civil engineering. The goal is to require foundations that are only 20-30 per >cent of those for a Hinkley-like build, with much of the work going into >creating an aseismic bearing for safety and so that the reactor does not require
    design changes.

    Another important difference with SMRs is capacity. Hinkley C and Sizewell C are
    3,200MWe-capacity projects. The SMRs proposed by Rolls-Royce are in the >220-440MWe range, equivalent to 150 wind turbines or an older coal-fired station.

    Rolls-Royce’s SMR concept is based on process innovation. Its SMRs will use >existing PWR technology with progressive cost savings achieved through >replication. The consortium is then looking to make deployments much more >quickly by telescoping a historically linear set of approvals processes for >technology, safety, and location into one that conducts all three simultaneously.

    The Russians have ships with smsll nuclear reactors that they send
    to cites along the coast to power and heat those:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 24 18:48:56 2022
    On 24/02/22 15:17, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
    <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
    <b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to >>>>
    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount

    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"

    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse >>>>
    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, >>>>
    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
    the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to
    improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat >>>>> to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment. >>>> That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
    70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried >>> to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
    billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they >>> will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

    France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
    Look up Euratom too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

    'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
    as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

    I know some bomb boys. That's preposterous.

    Harry said "There are so many safeguards, it's surprising that they
    can go off at all."

    Apparently SAC had that worry too.

    From http://web.archive.org/web/20120511191600/http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm

    The Strategic Air Command (SAC) in Omaha quietly decided to set the “locks” to
    all zeros in order to circumvent this safeguard. During the early to mid-1970s, during my stint as a Minuteman launch officer, they still had not been changed. Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the
    locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel. SAC remained far less concerned about unauthorized launches than about the potential of these safeguards to interfere with the implementation of wartime launch orders. And so
    the “secret unlock code” during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War
    remained constant at OOOOOOOO.

    After leaving the Air Force in 1974, I pressed the service, initially by letters
    addressed to it and then through congressional intermediaries, to consider a range of terrorist scenarios in which these locks could serve as crucial barriers against the unauthorized seizure of launch control over Minuteman missiles. In 1977, I co-authored (with Garry Brewer) an article (click here to view) entitled “The Terrorist Threat to World Nuclear Programs” in which I laid
    out the case for taking this threat more seriously and suggesting remedial measures including, first and foremost, activating those McNamara locks that apparently he and presidents presumed had already been activated.

    The locks were activated in 1977.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Thu Feb 24 12:10:37 2022
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 18:43:19 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:30:36 -0800) it happened >jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in ><koff1h9mfs694dbmp1t8fl0maqep16ogpq@4ax.com>:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:53:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:17:29 -0800) it happened >>>jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in >>><678f1hlkgem87advn3icb1kuskua3ulejm@4ax.com>:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>>><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >>>>><gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in >>>>><b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>>>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>

    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount

    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"

    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse

    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off, >>>>>>>
    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty, >>>>>>> >the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to >>>>>>> >improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat >>>>>>> >to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment. >>>>>>> That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants >>>>>>> 70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried
    to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
    billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they
    will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid. >>>>>
    France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
    Look up Euratom too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

    'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
    as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

    I know some bomb boys. That's preposterous.

    Harry said "There are so many safeguards, it's surprising that they
    can go off at all."

    My boss back a long time ago told me he knew one of those guys working
    on the US bomb here, the guy told him he dropped a PCB board or something in it
    while doing maintenance and never understood why it did not go off...

    It's very complex to set off an implosion bomb. Nanoseconds matter.

    The neutron initiators are independently interlocked. If they don't
    work, you get a fizzle.

    I don't think a nuke has ever detonated accidentally. Lots of gadgets
    have failed to go.

    Ted Taylor designed a bomb that absolutely failed to work.
    https://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore/dp/0374515980

    I have not read that book, but for example making a dirty nuclear bomb is not that hard.
    You can pollute a large area with a few dollars worth..
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahnhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn


    Ted says that he hated and was morally repulsed by nuclear weapons,
    except that they were so much fun to design.

    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Flyguy@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Thu Feb 24 12:52:42 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett wrote:
    Jeff Layman <jmla...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to reality: <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>
    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless" energy?
    Fusion is Fraud

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
    never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
    this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work,
    but it will never be commercially practical, especially with the
    plummeting cost of renewable sources like solar and wind.

    The solution is Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. This was
    demonstrated in the 1960's and ran for years with no significant
    problems. It was discarded since the focus at that time was
    pressurized water reactors for submarines, and the production of
    plutonium for atomic bombs. However, there is a recent resurgence in
    Molten Salt, which offers continuous power when the sun goes down
    and the wind stops blowing.

    Here is some more information on continuous energy sources:

    1. Fusion

    How close is nuclear fusion power? Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ4W1g-6JiY

    Fusion Has Major Problems That No One Is Telling You About https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrUWoywZRt8

    Former fusion scientist on why we won't have fusion power by 2040 Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurplDfPi3U

    In defense of "Q-plasma" - a response to Sabine Hossenfelder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtqC8W0_Ups

    ITER: The $65BN Power Plant of the Future https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCpWPJrH7TA

    ITER: The World's Biggest Nuclear Fusion Mega Project https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4puRMttZho

    2. Molten Salt Works and is cheaper than coal or nuclear power

    1957 to 1960 Oak Ridge The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

    Thorium Lifters Could Power Civilization for BILLIONS of Years https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74iiaXIVtZI

    TC No. 6 - Kirk Sorensen: "Thorium - A Global Alternative" Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IjC7vuJ3iE

    China Is Building a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EFfxMx6WJs

    3. Molten Salt can burn conventional nuclear waste

    Elysium Just Made A Nuclear Waste Eating Reactor https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLgJY0Wg

    This Molten Salt Reactor EATS Nuclear Waste https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6BGLgJY0Wg

    4. Nuclear Waste: Fission Products, Decay Products, Transuranics https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neU0KGgQ0Z4

    Among the fission products are xenon, neodymium, zirconium, and molebdenum. - xenon is used in satellite propulsion
    - neodymium is used in electric cars
    - zirconium is strong, malleable, corrosion resistant, with many uses
    - molebdenum is used in carbides and high-strength alloys and superalloys
    - molebdenum is a trace element essential for life

    5. Radioactivity

    5A. Isotopes of xenon

    Naturally occurring xenon (54Xe) consists of seven stable isotopes
    and two very long-lived isotopes. Double electron capture has been
    observed in 124Xe (half-life 1.8 +/- 0.5(stat) +/- 0.1(sys) x1022
    years)[1] and double beta decay in 136Xe (half-life 2.165 +/-
    0.016(stat) +/- 0.059(sys) x1021 years),[2] which are among the
    longest measured half-lives of all nuclides. The isotopes 126Xe and
    134Xe are also predicted to undergo double beta decay,[4] but this
    has never been observed in these isotopes, so they are considered to
    be stable.[5][6] Beyond these stable forms, 32 artificial unstable
    isotopes and various isomers have been studied, the longest-lived of
    which is 127Xe with a half-life of 36.345 days. All other isotopes
    have half-lives less than 12 days, most less than 20 hours. The shortest-lived isotope, 108Xe,[7] has a half-life of 58 ?s, and is
    the heaviest known nuclide with equal numbers of protons and
    neutrons. Of known isomers, the longest-lived is 131mXe with a
    half-life of 11.934 days. 129Xe is produced by beta decay of 129I (half-life: 16 million years); 131mXe, 133Xe, 133mXe, and 135Xe are
    some of the fission products of both 235U and 239Pu, so are used as indicators of nuclear explosions.

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

    5B. Isotopes of neodymium
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Naturally occurring neodymium (60Nd) is composed of 5 stable
    isotopes, 142Nd, 143Nd, 145Nd, 146Nd and 148Nd, with 142Nd being the
    most abundant (27.2% natural abundance), and 2 long-lived
    radioisotopes, 144Nd and 150Nd. In all, 33 radioisotopes of
    neodymium have been characterized up to now, with the most stable
    being naturally occurring isotopes 144Nd (alpha decay, a half-life
    (t1/2) of 2.29x1015 years) and 150Nd (double beta decay, t1/2 of
    7x1018 years).

    All of the remaining radioactive isotopes have half-lives that are
    less than 12 days, and the majority of these have half-lives that
    are less than 70 seconds; the most stable artificial isotope is
    147Nd with a half-life of 10.98 days. This element also has 13 known
    meta states with the most stable being 139mNd (t1/2 5.5 hours),
    135mNd (t1/2 5.5 minutes) and 133m1Nd (t1/2 ~70 seconds).

    The primary decay modes before the most abundant stable isotope,
    142Nd, are electron capture and positron decay, and the primary mode
    after is beta decay. The primary decay products before 142Nd are
    element Pr (praseodymium) isotopes and the primary products after
    are element Pm (promethium) isotopes.

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

    5C. Isotopes of molybdenum

    Molybdenum (42Mo) has 33 known isotopes, ranging in atomic mass from
    83 to 115, as well as four metastable nuclear isomers. Seven
    isotopes occur naturally, with atomic masses of 92, 94, 95, 96, 97,
    98, and 100. All unstable isotopes of molybdenum decay into isotopes
    of zirconium, niobium, technetium, and ruthenium.[2]

    Molybdenum-100 is the only naturally occurring isotope that is not
    stable. Molybdenum-100 has a half-life of approximately 1x1019 y and undergoes double beta decay into ruthenium-100. Molybdenum-98 is the
    most common isotope, comprising 24.14% of all molybdenum on Earth. Molybdenum isotopes with mass numbers 111 and up all have half-lives
    of approximately .15 s.[2]

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

    5D. Isotopes of zirconium

    Naturally occurring zirconium (40Zr) is composed of four stable
    isotopes (of which one may in the future be found radioactive), and
    one very long-lived radioisotope (96Zr), a primordial nuclide that
    decays via double beta decay with an observed half-life of 2.0x1019 years;[3] it can also undergo single beta decay, which is not yet
    observed, but the theoretically predicted value of t1/2 is 2.4x1020 years.[4] The second most stable radioisotope is 93Zr, which has a
    half-life of 1.53 million years. Thirty other radioisotopes have
    been observed. All have half-lives less than a day except for 95Zr
    (64.02 days), 88Zr (83.4 days), and 89Zr (78.41 hours). The primary
    decay mode is electron capture for isotopes lighter than 92Zr, and
    the primary mode for heavier isotopes is beta decay.

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

    Hi Mike,

    Thanks for this excellent summary of the issues regarding fusion energy. Contrary to what that idiot SNIPPERMAN says, duplicating the Sun in a fusion reactor is a fool's errand. Thorium molten salt reactors should get ALL of the R&D money that is being
    wasted on fusion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Walliker@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Thu Feb 24 13:53:58 2022
    On Thursday, 24 February 2022 at 18:03:15 UTC, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:

    I know some bomb boys. That's preposterous.

    Harry said "There are so many safeguards, it's surprising that they
    can go off at all."

    My boss back a long time ago told me he knew one of those guys working
    on the US bomb here, the guy told him he dropped a PCB board or something in it
    while doing maintenance and never understood why it did not go off...
    It's very complex to set off an implosion bomb. Nanoseconds matter.

    The neutron initiators are independently interlocked. If they don't
    work, you get a fizzle.

    I don't think a nuke has ever detonated accidentally. Lots of gadgets
    have failed to go.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash

    They can make quite a mess though:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash

    John

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Walliker@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Thu Feb 24 13:49:40 2022
    On Thursday, 24 February 2022 at 18:45:18 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:30:36 -0800) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <koff1h9mfs694dbmp...@4ax.com>:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:53:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:17:29 -0800) it happened >>jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in >><678f1hlkgem87advn...@4ax.com>:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C >>>><gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote in >>>><b80bd97d-0c86-4b30...@googlegroups.com>:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote: >>>>>> On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

    reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html>

    But even there note "The latest results use about three times the amount

    of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of "endless"

    energy?


    Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


    Jeroen Belleman


    "wasted until it no longer is" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse

    mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
    production of energy?




    It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,

    sorry.

    Jeroen Belleman

    Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty, >>>>>> >the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn't take a lot to >>>>>> >improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat >>>>>> >to cook and not freeze to death.

    Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.
    That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants >>>>>> 70% of 'trickety there is already nuclear.

    Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they've tried
    to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
    billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they
    will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid. >>>>
    France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
    Look up Euratom too:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

    'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
    as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

    I know some bomb boys. That's preposterous.

    Harry said "There are so many safeguards, it's surprising that they
    can go off at all."

    My boss back a long time ago told me he knew one of those guys working
    on the US bomb here, the guy told him he dropped a PCB board or something in it
    while doing maintenance and never understood why it did not go off...

    It's very complex to set off an implosion bomb. Nanoseconds matter.

    The neutron initiators are independently interlocked. If they don't
    work, you get a fizzle.

    I don't think a nuke has ever detonated accidentally. Lots of gadgets
    have failed to go.

    Ted Taylor designed a bomb that absolutely failed to work.

    https://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore/dp/0374515980 I have not read that book, but for example making a dirty nuclear bomb is not that hard.
    You can pollute a large area with a few dollars worth.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahnhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

    My uncle had a jewel store, and was also repairing and selling watches with radium covered hands.
    One day all those watches had to be taken out and could no longer be sold due to the radioactivity
    of those watch-hands.
    I had one as a present...
    Once I found a lot of green glassware in the attic at my parents home, mother told me
    I used to drink from it as a small kid, until somebody told her that uranium glass was dangerous.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_glass
    We had light switches with radium knobs that lighted green.
    Radiation.. we had Chernobyl fallout here too.
    The air filters from the aircos where I worked had to be replaced because those were hot on the Geiger counter.

    The air filters in a large hospital in London were quite active a few days after Chernobyl. I
    knew the radiation protection physicist who decided to check them. It was mostly iodine
    adsorbed onto fine soil particles. The activity was such that the filters had to be disposed
    of as radioactive waste.
    John

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 24 14:50:46 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 1:53:14 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:04:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:

    <snip>

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their own people by fracking
    and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs automatically.

    NG is wonderful and fracking is great. What a gift.

    John Larkin is a gullible sucker for fossil carbon extraction industry propaganda. Poisoned aquifers aren't the kind of gifts most people want.

    We might sell some LNG to Germany now and then, when they are freezing in the dark and we don't have any better offers.

    How generous. Curiously, Germany doesn't seem to be freezing in the dark at the moment, and probably will be able to do deals with less capricious suppliers if it needs to.

    France might make them a deal on leftover electricity too.

    Europe has a lot of electricity flowing across national borders. The UK has links across the Channel and the North Sea and I think that here is now one over to to Norway.

    We need to form OFEG, the Organization For Extorting Germans.

    Good luck with that. When the US government has to keep Trump-loving Republicans on-side their capacity to manage anything requiring even minimal competence is severely compromised.

    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low IQ followers buying that and look at the 'size' of the land they stole from the native Americans.

    America does have a history of nut-case presidents. Dubbya's invasion of Irak is probably the silliest move. Trump would have done worse if he'd been less incompetent. Biden might not be wonderful, but he's not quite so far around the bend.

    I was just reading about the tribal behavior of the Plains natives.
    They didn't exactly live in harmony.

    That lead to a conjecture: wars are started over access to high-quality protein, namely meat.

    World War 2 was mostly about access to oil. John Larkin hasn't heard about solar cells and wind farms either - his thinking is decidedly primitive.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Fri Feb 25 00:26:15 2022
    On 24/02/22 22:50, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 1:53:14 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:04:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com>
    wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:

    <snip>

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their
    own people by fracking and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs
    automatically.

    NG is wonderful and fracking is great. What a gift.

    John Larkin is a gullible sucker for fossil carbon extraction industry propaganda. Poisoned aquifers aren't the kind of gifts most people want.

    We might sell some LNG to Germany now and then, when they are freezing in >> the dark and we don't have any better offers.

    How generous. Curiously, Germany doesn't seem to be freezing in the dark at the moment, and probably will be able to do deals with less capricious suppliers if it needs to.

    France might make them a deal on leftover electricity too.

    Europe has a lot of electricity flowing across national borders. The UK has links across the Channel and the North Sea and I think that here is now one over to to Norway.

    We need to form OFEG, the Organization For Extorting Germans.

    Good luck with that. When the US government has to keep Trump-loving Republicans on-side their capacity to manage anything requiring even minimal competence is severely compromised.

    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low >>> IQ followers buying that and look at the 'size' of the land they stole
    from the native Americans.

    America does have a history of nut-case presidents. Dubbya's invasion of Irak is probably the silliest move. Trump would have done worse if he'd been less incompetent. Biden might not be wonderful, but he's not quite so far around the bend.

    The obits for PJ O'Rourke, who definitely isn't a Democrat, have noted that
    [O'Rourke's] libertarian conservatism reached its apotheosis with
    Donald Trump’s taking over the Republican party, reflected in his
    2016 book of election coverage How the Hell Did This Happen? He
    endorsed Hillary Clinton, because “she’s wrong about absolutely
    everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters”.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Feb 24 16:30:03 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 2:09:38 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 12:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:22:43 PM UTC+11, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
    wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to
    Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and
    cannot melt down.

    But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you
    will find out the hard way. Melting isn't the problem - producing
    heat that you can't get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because
    the diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant
    got flooded and stopped working.

    Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to
    avoid a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have
    a design that can't melt, you don't have the same kind of problem.

    There are others.

    With a TMSR, even the worst combination of failures does not result
    in an explosion or the release of radioactive elements.

    It might not result in an explosion, but if the molten salt get hot
    enough to melt it's container, the radioactive elements will escape.

    And there really isn't an upper limit to the temperatures you can get
    get if a nuclear reactor runs away - volatilise the molten salts and
    it could look very like an explosion.

    Thorium itself cannot sustain a fission reaction. As you noted
    yourself, it needs a slow neutron to turn it into uranium, which can
    then decay. If it is spread out enough, there is no way that enough
    neutrons from decaying uranium can activate enough thorium to end up sustaining a reaction.

    But you have to have enough U-233 in your thorium fuel to generate the heat and the neutrons to keep the process running. Normally you take out the heat that you need - that's what the reactor is there to generate. Stopping it generating that heat when
    you can't take it out is the problem.

    Drop the molten thorium salt into a container (it's /not/ hard to make a container that will withstand far higher temperatures than those in the reactor, and also withstand an earthquake - re-enforced concrete will be fine). Gravity will spread the
    splat, and the reaction stops.

    Sounds fine. Now think of all the ways that it might not work, and remember that mother nature has a more or less infinite capacity to come up with more.

    You have a bit of cleaning up to do, scraping up the solidified and somewhat radioactive mess. But it is all contained and safe, and you can probably just melt it again and put it back in once you are running again.

    If it all works as you expected.

    There are some other technical challenges with TMSR's - no one is
    claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications
    will be found as the current batch of experimental and research
    work continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current
    uranium reactors (which are themselves much safer than older
    plants, such as Fukushima).

    They may be safer, but they aren't all that safe.The worst case
    nuclear accident is somebody dropping an atomic bomb on a reactor,
    and a thorium reactor would offer much the same mass of radioactive material to be dispersed.

    You are /really/ scraping the barrel here. You think that if you drop
    an atomic bomb on the reactor, it's the reactor that's the problem? Seriously?

    It's a possible scenario. I didn't invent it.

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

    Most of what is in the reactor is /thorium/. It's a safe metal - it's
    found all over the place in rocks. Scattering thorium around the site
    of a nuclear bomb detonation is not going to make the slightest difference.

    A nuclear reactor works by splitting the uranium nucleus into two or more lighter nuclei.

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

    There are lots of possible products and quite a few of them are radioactive. They aren't safe. If a thorium reactor had a mechanism for electroplating them out of the molten salt on a continuous basis there might not be all that much nasty stuff there
    at any one time, but I haven't heard of any such scheme.

    Sure, TMSR are not /completely/ safe. Nor is anything else in this
    world. But are you going to tell us how dangerous hydroelectric power
    is, since a big enough bomb will burst the damn?

    There was a film about it, called "The Dambusters".

    They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode.The
    waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon,
    zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

    Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
    waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you
    have with a regular nuclear reactor.

    No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far
    less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium
    reactor. (That doesn't mean that getting useful metals out of it is
    necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of
    the waste compared to conventional reactors.

    In fact it is equally problematic, but there is less of it.

    No, it is not. Please read up about this. Vastly more of the potential nuclear energy is used in TMSR reactors than conventional uranium
    reactors (perhaps because they are designed for that purpose, whereas conventional reactors were designed to make bomb-grade uranium and
    plutonium with electricity as a bonus side-effect). The waste isotopes
    do not have anything like the dangerous lifespans of the uranium reactor waste - we are talking 100 years rather than 10,000 years.

    This is regularly claimed by proponents of thorium reactors. It doesn't seem to be true.

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

    can be expected to be one of the fission products. Technetium, with atomic number Z = 43, is the lowest-numbered element in the periodic table for which all isotopes are radioactive, so it is the easy one to point to.It's most stable radioactive isotopes
    are technetium-97 with a half-life of 4.21 million years,technetium-98 with 4.2 million years, and technetium-99 with 211,100 years.

    The fission of a gram of uranium-235 in nuclear reactors yields 27 mg of technetium-99, Other fissile isotopes produce similar yields of technetium, such as 22mg from one gram of uranium-233.

    We still haven't got any kind of longer term repository for radioactive waste
    and we've been generating it for about eighty years now. It may be a
    small problem, but like the very small baby, it isn't one that you
    can ignore.

    The world has done so quite happily so far.

    But unwisely.

    And it's a far more tractable problem than dealing with all the environmental poison and damage that comes from the fossil fuel industry. A typical coal-fired power station leaks more radioactive waste than a conventional nuclear power station,
    including its waste storage.

    We aren't dealing all that well with damage done and still being done by the fossil fuel industry. That problem isn't tractable either.

    Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture
    to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it
    can undergo nuclear fission.

    Yes, that's the point - that's what makes it safe.

    But what you end up with is just as dangerous as the products of
    splitting U-235. You don't transmute loads of U-238 in the process,
    so it may be somewhat less dangerous, but it isn't remotely safe.

    You need to read up on how this all works.

    I have done. You clearly haven't.

    (Note that you can also make uranium-powered facilities safer and more efficient than they are today, by using higher temperatures and molten
    salts to get much more of the power out of the same fuel. But thorium
    is better still.)

    But still insanely dangerous.

    TMSR's are walk-away safe.

    Until they aren't.

    What a silly thing to say.

    Everybody says that stuff is "walk-away safe" until some unanticipated problem comes up

    A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten
    salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators.
    The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
    over.

    If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have
    a way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

    It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
    remaining frozen but broke everything else!

    If it blocked the drain path, melting the plug wouldn't serve any useful purpose.

    This isn't rocket science. (There are other aspects that are
    technically and scientifically challenging, but this is not.) We know
    how powerful earthquakes can get. making a foundation and catch bowl
    that will survive the biggest feasible earthquake is simply a matter of spending enough money on the problem - and it's not a lot of money in
    the total budget.

    Of course when you've spent the money, you've got to wait for that earthquake to find out that you didn't spend the money in quite the right way.

    Of course, now you are going to tell us that it won't survive a dinosaur-killing meteor strike.

    Or somebody dropping a nuclear bomb on it.

    That's the point of this design it is "fail safe" - lots of things
    must be actively running in order for the fission to continue.
    That is not the case with uranium.

    Since it depends on splitting U-233 rather than U-235, this isn't
    entirely obvious.

    And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put
    the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get
    flooded.

    That's one lesson. Each new disaster teaches us another.

    We are in the middle of a disaster. Wind and solar power is reducing it a little, but not enough.

    They are reducing it at a rate determined by our capacity to build more solar cell farms and windfarms. We've got economies of scale on solar cells, and we are starting to get them on windfarms.

    It now a matter of keeping on turning the handle (and installing enough grid storage of various sorts to cover nights and windless days).

    Deciding to go nuclear with novel thorium reactors isn't going to solve the problem faster - it's just going to divert investment away from an approach which is clearly working and should get us where we need to be before global warming has wrecked our
    capacity to do anything on that kind of scale.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Thu Feb 24 17:44:58 2022
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 00:26:15 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 24/02/22 22:50, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 1:53:14 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:04:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com>
    wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:

    <snip>

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their >>>> own people by fracking and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs >>>> automatically.

    NG is wonderful and fracking is great. What a gift.

    John Larkin is a gullible sucker for fossil carbon extraction industry
    propaganda. Poisoned aquifers aren't the kind of gifts most people want.

    We might sell some LNG to Germany now and then, when they are freezing in >>> the dark and we don't have any better offers.

    How generous. Curiously, Germany doesn't seem to be freezing in the dark at >> the moment, and probably will be able to do deals with less capricious
    suppliers if it needs to.

    France might make them a deal on leftover electricity too.

    Europe has a lot of electricity flowing across national borders. The UK has >> links across the Channel and the North Sea and I think that here is now one >> over to to Norway.

    We need to form OFEG, the Organization For Extorting Germans.

    Good luck with that. When the US government has to keep Trump-loving
    Republicans on-side their capacity to manage anything requiring even minimal >> competence is severely compromised.

    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low >>>> IQ followers buying that and look at the 'size' of the land they stole >>>> from the native Americans.

    America does have a history of nut-case presidents. Dubbya's invasion of Irak
    is probably the silliest move. Trump would have done worse if he'd been less >> incompetent. Biden might not be wonderful, but he's not quite so far around >> the bend.

    The obits for PJ O'Rourke, who definitely isn't a Democrat, have noted that
    [O'Rourke's] libertarian conservatism reached its apotheosis with
    Donald Trumps taking over the Republican party, reflected in his
    2016 book of election coverage How the Hell Did This Happen? He
    endorsed Hillary Clinton, because shes wrong about absolutely
    everything, but shes wrong within normal parameters.

    The best thing about Trump is how ballistic he makes certain people.

    Someone who knows said that "Joe Biden has 40 years of foreign policy experience, and he's always been wrong."



    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 24 17:59:35 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 2:19:56 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    [...]

    Fusion is Fraud

    It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
    never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of >>>this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it >>>will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost >>>of renewable sources like solar and wind.

    The tokamak versions don't look promising, except as giant money
    sinks. Some other form of fusion might be practical.

    Fantastic breakthroughs are announced regularly. Stock shares increase in >value, which are then sold off at huge profit. Nothing more is heard of the >breakthrough, until a new breakthrough is announced. The cycle repeats.

    This is the classical pump and dump scheme.

    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to Thorium >Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot melt down. They >operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste products are >commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

    TMSR's are walk-away safe. A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of >power. The molten salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon >moderators. The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is >over.

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    Excellent. We need more.

    We really don't, but the fossil carbon extraction industry likes to deny this, and John Larkin does seem to believe all the nonsense that Anthony Watts serves up on their behalf.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Thu Feb 24 18:10:09 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:45:12 PM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 00:26:15 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 24/02/22 22:50, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 1:53:14 AM UTC+11,
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:04:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> >>> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
    <jer...@nospam.please> wrote:
    Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:

    <snip>

    Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their >>>> own people by fracking and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs >>>> automatically.

    NG is wonderful and fracking is great. What a gift.

    John Larkin is a gullible sucker for fossil carbon extraction industry
    propaganda. Poisoned aquifers aren't the kind of gifts most people want. >>
    We might sell some LNG to Germany now and then, when they are freezing in
    the dark and we don't have any better offers.

    How generous. Curiously, Germany doesn't seem to be freezing in the dark at
    the moment, and probably will be able to do deals with less capricious
    suppliers if it needs to.

    France might make them a deal on leftover electricity too.

    Europe has a lot of electricity flowing across national borders. The UK has
    links across the Channel and the North Sea and I think that here is now one
    over to to Norway.

    We need to form OFEG, the Organization For Extorting Germans.

    Good luck with that. When the US government has to keep Trump-loving
    Republicans on-side their capacity to manage anything requiring even minimal
    competence is severely compromised.

    Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low
    IQ followers buying that and look at the 'size' of the land they stole >>>> from the native Americans.

    America does have a history of nut-case presidents. Dubbya's invasion of Irak
    is probably the silliest move. Trump would have done worse if he'd been less
    incompetent. Biden might not be wonderful, but he's not quite so far around
    the bend.

    The obits for PJ O'Rourke, who definitely isn't a Democrat, have noted that
    [O'Rourke's] libertarian conservatism reached its apotheosis with
    Donald Trump’s taking over the Republican party, reflected in his
    2016 book of election coverage How the Hell Did This Happen? He
    endorsed Hillary Clinton, because “she’s wrong about absolutely everything, but she’s wrong within normal parameters”.

    The best thing about Trump is how ballistic he makes certain people.

    What's good about it? The more you know, the less you like Trump.

    Someone who knows said that "Joe Biden has 40 years of foreign policy experience, and he's always been wrong."

    By which James Arthur probably meant that Joe Biden hadn't agreed with the Republicans.

    As with all such assertions, it's example-free.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Thu Feb 24 18:10:44 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:30:12 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 2:09:38 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 12:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:22:43 PM UTC+11, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
    wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to
    Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and
    cannot melt down.

    But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you
    will find out the hard way. Melting isn't the problem - producing
    heat that you can't get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because
    the diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant
    got flooded and stopped working.

    Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to
    avoid a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have
    a design that can't melt, you don't have the same kind of problem.

    There are others.

    With a TMSR, even the worst combination of failures does not result
    in an explosion or the release of radioactive elements.

    It might not result in an explosion, but if the molten salt get hot enough to melt it's container, the radioactive elements will escape.

    And there really isn't an upper limit to the temperatures you can get get if a nuclear reactor runs away - volatilise the molten salts and
    it could look very like an explosion.

    Thorium itself cannot sustain a fission reaction. As you noted
    yourself, it needs a slow neutron to turn it into uranium, which can
    then decay. If it is spread out enough, there is no way that enough neutrons from decaying uranium can activate enough thorium to end up sustaining a reaction.
    But you have to have enough U-233 in your thorium fuel to generate the heat and the neutrons to keep the process running. Normally you take out the heat that you need - that's what the reactor is there to generate. Stopping it generating that heat when
    you can't take it out is the problem.

    The first step of the reactions require moderation of the neutrons, using moderators that are only in the reactor. If the fuel overheats it melts a salt plug that allows it to drain into a tank where there is no moderator. The reactions are no longer
    initiated. The heat is dissipated passively. The reactions die down in a relatively short time. The world is safe for the family.

    Do you really not understand this or are you talking about some other problem?


    Drop the molten thorium salt into a container (it's /not/ hard to make a container that will withstand far higher temperatures than those in the reactor, and also withstand an earthquake - re-enforced concrete will be fine). Gravity will spread the
    splat, and the reaction stops.
    Sounds fine. Now think of all the ways that it might not work, and remember that mother nature has a more or less infinite capacity to come up with more.

    I can't think of any. Please advise.

    Don't invoke the Jurassic Park Dr. Ian Malcolm : "John, the kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands
    to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is."

    As if failure is inherent.


    You have a bit of cleaning up to do, scraping up the solidified and somewhat radioactive mess. But it is all contained and safe, and you can probably just melt it again and put it back in once you are running again.
    If it all works as you expected.
    There are some other technical challenges with TMSR's - no one is
    claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications
    will be found as the current batch of experimental and research
    work continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current
    uranium reactors (which are themselves much safer than older
    plants, such as Fukushima).

    They may be safer, but they aren't all that safe.The worst case
    nuclear accident is somebody dropping an atomic bomb on a reactor,
    and a thorium reactor would offer much the same mass of radioactive material to be dispersed.

    You are /really/ scraping the barrel here. You think that if you drop
    an atomic bomb on the reactor, it's the reactor that's the problem? Seriously?
    It's a possible scenario. I didn't invent it.

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

    Same is true for virtually any chemical factory or petroleum plant. Look at the Bhopal disaster. That didn't even require a nuke.


    Most of what is in the reactor is /thorium/. It's a safe metal - it's found all over the place in rocks. Scattering thorium around the site
    of a nuclear bomb detonation is not going to make the slightest difference.
    A nuclear reactor works by splitting the uranium nucleus into two or more lighter nuclei.

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

    There are lots of possible products and quite a few of them are radioactive. They aren't safe. If a thorium reactor had a mechanism for electroplating them out of the molten salt on a continuous basis there might not be all that much nasty stuff there
    at any one time, but I haven't heard of any such scheme.
    Sure, TMSR are not /completely/ safe. Nor is anything else in this
    world. But are you going to tell us how dangerous hydroelectric power
    is, since a big enough bomb will burst the damn?
    There was a film about it, called "The Dambusters".
    They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode.The
    waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon,
    zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

    Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
    waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you
    have with a regular nuclear reactor.

    No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far
    less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium
    reactor. (That doesn't mean that getting useful metals out of it is
    necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of
    the waste compared to conventional reactors.

    In fact it is equally problematic, but there is less of it.

    No, it is not. Please read up about this. Vastly more of the potential nuclear energy is used in TMSR reactors than conventional uranium
    reactors (perhaps because they are designed for that purpose, whereas conventional reactors were designed to make bomb-grade uranium and plutonium with electricity as a bonus side-effect). The waste isotopes
    do not have anything like the dangerous lifespans of the uranium reactor waste - we are talking 100 years rather than 10,000 years.
    This is regularly claimed by proponents of thorium reactors. It doesn't seem to be true.

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

    can be expected to be one of the fission products. Technetium, with atomic number Z = 43, is the lowest-numbered element in the periodic table for which all isotopes are radioactive, so it is the easy one to point to.It's most stable radioactive
    isotopes are technetium-97 with a half-life of 4.21 million years,technetium-98 with 4.2 million years, and technetium-99 with 211,100 years.

    The fission of a gram of uranium-235 in nuclear reactors yields 27 mg of technetium-99, Other fissile isotopes produce similar yields of technetium, such as 22mg from one gram of uranium-233.

    With a half life of 200,000 years, would that not be only very slightly radioactive?


    We still haven't got any kind of longer term repository for radioactive waste
    and we've been generating it for about eighty years now. It may be a small problem, but like the very small baby, it isn't one that you
    can ignore.

    The world has done so quite happily so far.
    But unwisely.
    And it's a far more tractable problem than dealing with all the environmental poison and damage that comes from the fossil fuel industry. A typical coal-fired power station leaks more radioactive waste than a conventional nuclear power station,
    including its waste storage.
    We aren't dealing all that well with damage done and still being done by the fossil fuel industry. That problem isn't tractable either.
    Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture
    to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it
    can undergo nuclear fission.

    Yes, that's the point - that's what makes it safe.

    But what you end up with is just as dangerous as the products of splitting U-235. You don't transmute loads of U-238 in the process,
    so it may be somewhat less dangerous, but it isn't remotely safe.

    You need to read up on how this all works.
    I have done. You clearly haven't.
    (Note that you can also make uranium-powered facilities safer and more efficient than they are today, by using higher temperatures and molten salts to get much more of the power out of the same fuel. But thorium
    is better still.)
    But still insanely dangerous.
    TMSR's are walk-away safe.

    Until they aren't.

    What a silly thing to say.

    Everybody says that stuff is "walk-away safe" until some unanticipated problem comes up

    A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten
    salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators.
    The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
    over.

    If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have
    a way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

    It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
    remaining frozen but broke everything else!

    If it blocked the drain path, melting the plug wouldn't serve any useful purpose.

    This isn't rocket science. (There are other aspects that are
    technically and scientifically challenging, but this is not.) We know
    how powerful earthquakes can get. making a foundation and catch bowl
    that will survive the biggest feasible earthquake is simply a matter of spending enough money on the problem - and it's not a lot of money in
    the total budget.
    Of course when you've spent the money, you've got to wait for that earthquake to find out that you didn't spend the money in quite the right way.
    Of course, now you are going to tell us that it won't survive a dinosaur-killing meteor strike.
    Or somebody dropping a nuclear bomb on it.
    That's the point of this design it is "fail safe" - lots of things
    must be actively running in order for the fission to continue.
    That is not the case with uranium.

    Since it depends on splitting U-233 rather than U-235, this isn't entirely obvious.

    And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put
    the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get
    flooded.

    That's one lesson. Each new disaster teaches us another.

    We are in the middle of a disaster. Wind and solar power is reducing it a little, but not enough.
    They are reducing it at a rate determined by our capacity to build more solar cell farms and windfarms. We've got economies of scale on solar cells, and we are starting to get them on windfarms.

    It now a matter of keeping on turning the handle (and installing enough grid storage of various sorts to cover nights and windless days).

    Deciding to go nuclear with novel thorium reactors isn't going to solve the problem faster - it's just going to divert investment away from an approach which is clearly working and should get us where we need to be before global warming has wrecked our
    capacity to do anything on that kind of scale.

    I was reading something about wind energy and found that in that area (don't recall the details) wind fell off dramatically as a seasonal thing, possibly winter. That is not likely to ever become manageable by building storage.

    Most people who complain that grid storage won't work aren't really looking at much relevant data. But I've never found data that says it can work effectively either.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to gnuarm.del...@gmail.com on Thu Feb 24 19:12:50 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 1:10:52 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:30:12 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 2:09:38 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 12:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:22:43 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
    On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
    wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


    Fission is sensible but scares people.

    True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don't apply to >>>> Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and
    cannot melt down.

    But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you
    will find out the hard way. Melting isn't the problem - producing >>> heat that you can't get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because
    the diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant
    got flooded and stopped working.

    Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to
    avoid a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have >> a design that can't melt, you don't have the same kind of problem.

    There are others.

    With a TMSR, even the worst combination of failures does not result >> in an explosion or the release of radioactive elements.

    It might not result in an explosion, but if the molten salt get hot enough to melt it's container, the radioactive elements will escape.

    And there really isn't an upper limit to the temperatures you can get get if a nuclear reactor runs away - volatilise the molten salts and it could look very like an explosion.

    Thorium itself cannot sustain a fission reaction. As you noted
    yourself, it needs a slow neutron to turn it into uranium, which can then decay. If it is spread out enough, there is no way that enough neutrons from decaying uranium can activate enough thorium to end up sustaining a reaction.

    But you have to have enough U-233 in your thorium fuel to generate the heat and the neutrons to keep the process running. Normally you take out the heat that you need - that's what the reactor is there to generate. Stopping it generating that heat
    when you can't take it out is the problem.

    The first step of the reactions require moderation of the neutrons, using moderators that are only in the reactor. If the fuel overheats it melts a salt plug that allows it to drain into a tank where there is no moderator.

    If nothing else blocks the hole the salt plug had been blocking. and the tank hasn't been filled with something else that wouldn't have been expected to end up in it, but did. Disasters don't always play out the way we'd like them to.

    The reactions are no longer initiated. The heat is dissipated passively. The reactions die down in a relatively short time. The world is safe for the family.

    The contests of the tank are still intensely radioactive, and will stay that way for quite a while.

    Do you really not understand this or are you talking about some other problem?

    Do you really think that an optimists idea of the way a disaster might play out is the only possible scenario?

    Drop the molten thorium salt into a container (it's /not/ hard to make a container that will withstand far higher temperatures than those in the reactor, and also withstand an earthquake - re-enforced concrete will be fine). Gravity will spread the
    splat, and the reaction stops.

    Sounds fine. Now think of all the ways that it might not work, and remember that mother nature has a more or less infinite capacity to come up with more.

    I can't think of any. Please advise.

    Get a better brain.

    Don't invoke the Jurassic Park Dr. Ian Malcolm : "John, the kind of control you're attempting simply is... it's not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it
    expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is."

    As if failure is inherent.

    It does happen pretty often, if unpredictably.

    You have a bit of cleaning up to do, scraping up the solidified and somewhat radioactive mess. But it is all contained and safe, and you can probably just melt it again and put it back in once you are running again.

    If it all works as you expected.

    There are some other technical challenges with TMSR's - no one is
    claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications
    will be found as the current batch of experimental and research
    work continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current
    uranium reactors (which are themselves much safer than older
    plants, such as Fukushima).

    They may be safer, but they aren't all that safe.The worst case nuclear accident is somebody dropping an atomic bomb on a reactor,
    and a thorium reactor would offer much the same mass of radioactive material to be dispersed.

    You are /really/ scraping the barrel here. You think that if you drop
    an atomic bomb on the reactor, it's the reactor that's the problem? Seriously?

    It's a possible scenario. I didn't invent it.

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

    Same is true for virtually any chemical factory or petroleum plant. Look at the Bhopal disaster. That didn't even require a nuke.

    Not remotely true. There's a lot more concentrated nastiness in the middle of a nuclear reactor than any chemical plant - enough to make a country the size of Belgium uninhabitable for several thousand years.

    Most of what is in the reactor is /thorium/. It's a safe metal - it's found all over the place in rocks. Scattering thorium around the site
    of a nuclear bomb detonation is not going to make the slightest difference.

    A nuclear reactor works by splitting the uranium nucleus into two or more lighter nuclei.

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

    There are lots of possible products and quite a few of them are radioactive. They aren't safe. If a thorium reactor had a mechanism for electroplating them out of the molten salt on a continuous basis there might not be all that much nasty stuff
    there at any one time, but I haven't heard of any such scheme.

    Sure, TMSR are not /completely/ safe. Nor is anything else in this world. But are you going to tell us how dangerous hydroelectric power is, since a big enough bomb will burst the damn?

    There was a film about it, called "The Dambusters".

    They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode.The
    waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon,
    zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

    Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the >>> waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you
    have with a regular nuclear reactor.

    No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far
    less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium
    reactor. (That doesn't mean that getting useful metals out of it is >> necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of
    the waste compared to conventional reactors.

    In fact it is equally problematic, but there is less of it.

    No, it is not. Please read up about this. Vastly more of the potential nuclear energy is used in TMSR reactors than conventional uranium reactors (perhaps because they are designed for that purpose, whereas conventional reactors were designed to make bomb-grade uranium and plutonium with electricity as a bonus side-effect). The waste isotopes do not have anything like the dangerous lifespans of the uranium reactor waste - we are talking 100 years rather than 10,000 years.

    This is regularly claimed by proponents of thorium reactors. It doesn't seem to be true.

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

    can be expected to be one of the fission products. Technetium, with atomic number Z = 43, is the lowest-numbered element in the periodic table for which all isotopes are radioactive, so it is the easy one to point to.It's most stable radioactive
    isotopes are technetium-97 with a half-life of 4.21 million years,technetium-98 with 4.2 million years, and technetium-99 with 211,100 years.

    The fission of a gram of uranium-235 in nuclear reactors yields 27 mg of technetium-99, Other fissile isotopes produce similar yields of technetium, such as 22mg from one gram of uranium-233.

    With a half life of 200,000 years, would that not be only very slightly radioactive?

    Technetium-99 is only one of three more or less stable isotopes Te-97 and Te-98 have half-lives of about 4.2 million years, so are even more slightly radioactive. Nuclear fission produces lots of others elements and some of the isotopes are shorter-lived.
    You don't want any of them.

    We still haven't got any kind of longer term repository for radioactive waste
    and we've been generating it for about eighty years now. It may be a small problem, but like the very small baby, it isn't one that you
    can ignore.

    The world has done so quite happily so far.

    But unwisely.

    And it's a far more tractable problem than dealing with all the environmental poison and damage that comes from the fossil fuel industry. A typical coal-fired power station leaks more radioactive waste than a conventional nuclear power station,
    including its waste storage.

    We aren't dealing all that well with damage done and still being done by the fossil fuel industry. That problem isn't tractable either.

    Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture
    to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it >>> can undergo nuclear fission.

    Yes, that's the point - that's what makes it safe.

    But what you end up with is just as dangerous as the products of splitting U-235. You don't transmute loads of U-238 in the process,
    so it may be somewhat less dangerous, but it isn't remotely safe.

    You need to read up on how this all works.

    I have done. You clearly haven't.

    (Note that you can also make uranium-powered facilities safer and more efficient than they are today, by using higher temperatures and molten salts to get much more of the power out of the same fuel. But thorium
    is better still.)

    But still insanely dangerous.

    TMSR's are walk-away safe.

    Until they aren't.

    What a silly thing to say.

    Everybody says that stuff is "walk-away safe" until some unanticipated problem comes up

    A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten
    salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators.
    The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
    over.

    If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have
    a way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

    It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
    remaining frozen but broke everything else!

    If it blocked the drain path, melting the plug wouldn't serve any useful purpose.

    This isn't rocket science. (There are other aspects that are
    technically and scientifically challenging, but this is not.) We know how powerful earthquakes can get. making a foundation and catch bowl that will survive the biggest feasible earthquake is simply a matter of spending enough money on the problem - and it's not a lot of money in the total budget.

    Of course when you've spent the money, you've got to wait for that earthquake to find out that you didn't spend the money in quite the right way.

    Of course, now you are going to tell us that it won't survive a dinosaur-killing meteor strike.

    Or somebody dropping a nuclear bomb on it.

    That's the point of this design it is "fail safe" - lots of things
    must be actively running in order for the fission to continue.
    That is not the case with uranium.

    Since it depends on splitting U-233 rather than U-235, this isn't entirely obvious.

    And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put >> the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get
    flooded.

    That's one lesson. Each new disaster teaches us another.

    We are in the middle of a disaster. Wind and solar power is reducing it a little, but not enough.

    They are reducing it at a rate determined by our capacity to build more solar cell farms and windfarms. We've got economies of scale on solar cells, and we are starting to get them on windfarms.

    It now a matter of keeping on turning the handle (and installing enough grid storage of various sorts to cover nights and windless days).

    Deciding to go nuclear with novel thorium reactors isn't going to solve the problem faster - it's just going to divert investment away from an approach which is clearly working and should get us where we need to be before global warming has wrecked
    our capacity to do anything on that kind of scale.

    I was reading something about wind energy and found that in that area (don't recall the details) wind fell off dramatically as a seasonal thing, possibly winter. That is not likely to ever become manageable by building storage.

    In your ever-so-expert opinion. The local obsession is to use solar power to make elelctrolitic hydrogen in Australia and liquify it here before shipping it off to Japan and South Korea.

    You can store months of energy as liquid hydrogen (as you can with liquified petroleum gas). You only get back a quarter of the energy you used to make the liquid hydrogen, but that doesn't seem to be worrying anybody.

    Most people who complain that grid storage won't work aren't really looking at much relevant data. But I've never found data that says it can work effectively either.


    It isn't a cheap - at the moment - as a fast-start gas-turbine powered generator running on natural gas - now - or hydrogen - later.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Thu Feb 24 19:11:10 2022
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    [...]

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly
    nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    Excellent. We need more.

    We don't need the temperature rise.



    Actually, it's good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    Temps are up a couple of degs C from the Little Ice Age, which was
    really bad news. The next big ice age would kill off most of the
    critters on earth. Maybe we can prevent it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#General_Crisis_of_the_Seventeenth_Century



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Thu Feb 24 19:21:14 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 2:11:25 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    [...]

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's fairly >>>> nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    Excellent. We need more.

    We don't need the temperature rise.


    Actually, it's good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    Or has, so far. Heat waves are starting to kill people too, and we are getting more of them.

    Temps are up a couple of degs C from the Little Ice Age, which was
    really bad news. The next big ice age would kill off most of the
    critters on earth.

    None of the previous ones did. We've been having one every hundred thousand years or so for the past few million years.

    Maybe we can prevent it.

    We already have,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#General_Crisis_of_the_Seventeenth_Century

    Misleading.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_temperature_record#/media/File:2000+_year_global_temperature_including_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_-_Ed_Hawkins.svg>

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Monett@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 25 07:43:11 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    [...]

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's
    fairly nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    Excellent. We need more.

    We don't need the temperature rise.

    Actually, it's good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument. We are not in an ice age. Rising temperatures due to CO2
    from burning fossil fuels are causing severe hurricanes and heat waves
    which kill people and cause great damage. Rising temperatures are melting glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, causing flooding in coastal areas.

    Permafrost in Siberia is melting, releasing huge quantities of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. This causes further increases in temperature, which causes further melting.

    Organizations around the world have recognized the danger the planet is in
    from global warming. Unfortunately, fixing the problem is very difficult,
    and temperatures are expected to rise.

    Temps are up a couple of degs C from the Little Ice Age, which was
    really bad news. The next big ice age would kill off most of the
    critters on earth. Maybe we can prevent it.

    A foolish concept. Rising temperatures will kill more people while you are waiting for the next ice age.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#General_Crisis_of_the_Sevent eenth_Century

    Quote from your link:

    "Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity (specifically the catastrophic Kaharoa
    eruption of Mount Tarawera in 1315[12]), changes in the ocean circulation, variations in Earth's orbit and axial tilt (orbital forcing), inherent variability in global climate, and decreases in the human population"

    - what decreases in human population have to do with ice ages is not clear.

    "Global average temperatures show that the Little Ice Age was not a
    distinct planet-wide time period but the end of a long temperature decline, which preceded the recent global warming.[1]"

    The image showing temperature changes during the little ice age are
    completely overwhelmed by the temperature rise due to burning fossil fuels
    and release of methane:

    https://tinyurl.com/mr9awycc

    From Wikipedia:

    "Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts
    on Earth's weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are distinctly more rapid and not due to natural causes.[2] Instead, they are caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for
    energy use creates most of these emissions. Agriculture, steelmaking,
    cement production, and forest loss are additional sources.[3] Greenhouse
    gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it through to heat the Earth's surface. When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation the gases
    absorb it, trapping the heat near the Earth's surface. As the planet heats
    up it causes changes like the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover, amplifying global warming.[4]"

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

    While you can try to fabricate arguments in favor of your denials, the documented facts are against you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 25 00:34:32 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    We don't need the temperature rise.

    Actually, it's good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    The statistics in Death Valley say otherwise.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 25 03:19:22 2022
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> >>>> wrote:

    [...]

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's
    fairly nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    Excellent. We need more.

    We don't need the temperature rise.

    Actually, it's good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument. We are not in an ice age.

    Did I say we were? I thought I said that temps are up from the LIA. We
    are actually in a fairly rare inter-glacial period, which is why you
    and me are alive.

    Rising temperatures due to CO2
    from burning fossil fuels are causing severe hurricanes and heat waves
    which kill people and cause great damage. Rising temperatures are melting >glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, causing flooding in coastal areas.



    Sea level is increasing about 2mm per year. Kids with plastic shovels
    and pails of sand could keep up with that.

    Coral islands are mostly getting bigger. I guess the corals like warm
    water and lots of CO2.

    Don't build a ranch-style house on the beach. Obama and his pals are
    all building ocean-front estates where they have parties without
    masks.



    Permafrost in Siberia is melting, releasing huge quantities of methane, a >potent greenhouse gas. This causes further increases in temperature, which >causes further melting.

    Fear and neurosis and hysteria. It's beautiful outside. I like it.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 25 03:22:09 2022
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 00:34:32 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:11:25 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    We don't need the temperature rise.

    Actually, it's good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    The statistics in Death Valley say otherwise.

    Well, it is called Death Valley for a reason. Nobody can claim they
    weren't warned.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 25 11:38:31 2022
    Bozo, the group clown...


    Bozo Bill Sloman is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be
    reasoned with...

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo paraphrased)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bill Sloman)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Monett@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 25 12:34:27 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett
    <spamme@not.com> wrote:

    [...]

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's
    fairly nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    Excellent. We need more.

    We don't need the temperature rise.

    Actually, it's good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument. We are not in an ice age.

    Did I say we were? I thought I said that temps are up from the LIA. We
    are actually in a fairly rare inter-glacial period, which is why you
    and me are alive.

    Rising temperatures due to CO2
    from burning fossil fuels are causing severe hurricanes and heat waves >>which kill people and cause great damage. Rising temperatures are
    melting glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, causing flooding in
    coastal areas.



    Sea level is increasing about 2mm per year. Kids with plastic shovels
    and pails of sand could keep up with that.

    As humans continue to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, oceans
    have tempered the effect. The world's seas have absorbed more than 90
    percent of the heat from these gases, but its taking a toll on our
    oceans: 2021 set a new record for ocean heating.

    Rising seas is one of those climate change effects. Average sea levels
    have swelled over 8 inches (about 23 cm) since 1880, with about three of
    those inches gained in the last 25 years. Every year, the sea rises
    another .13 inches (3.2 mm.) New research published on February 15, 2022
    shows that sea level rise is accelerating and projected to rise by a foot
    by 2050.

    That translates into as much sea level rise in the next 30 years as
    occurred over the last century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations latest technical data, which updates 2017 projections with the most precise estimates yet.

    Rick Spinrad, the NOAA administrator, called the findings historic, and warned that the projected rise will occur regardless, even if carbon
    emissions are drastically cut. In the United States, the most vulnerable populations live on the East and Gulf Coasts, where damaging flooding is predicted to occur 10 times more often in 2050 than it does today.

    Coral islands are mostly getting bigger. I guess the corals like warm
    water and lots of CO2.

    Don't build a ranch-style house on the beach. Obama and his pals are
    all building ocean-front estates where they have parties without
    masks.



    Permafrost in Siberia is melting, releasing huge quantities of methane,
    a potent greenhouse gas. This causes further increases in temperature, >>which causes further melting.

    Fear and neurosis and hysteria. It's beautiful outside. I like it.

    Weather is not climate.

    The dangers are real. Many countries are implementing plans to reduce CO2 emissions.

    From Wikipedia:

    "Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts
    on Earth's weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate change, but the current changes are distinctly more rapid and not due to natural causes.[2] Instead, they are caused by the emission of greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for
    energy use creates most of these emissions. Agriculture, steelmaking,
    cement production, and forest loss are additional sources.[3] Greenhouse
    gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it through to heat the Earth's surface. When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation the gases
    absorb it, trapping the heat near the Earth's surface. As the planet heats
    up it causes changes like the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover, amplifying global warming.[4]"

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

    The Paris Agreement

    The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December
    2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016.

    Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5
    degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.

    To achieve this long-term temperature goal, countries aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to achieve a
    climate neutral world by mid-century.

    The Paris Agreement is a landmark in the multilateral climate change
    process because, for the first time, a binding agreement brings all
    nations into a common cause to undertake ambitious efforts to combat
    climate change and adapt to its effects.

    https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agree ment

    Electric cars

    Many countries are abolishing internal combustion engines to reduce CO2 emissions. Quote:

    "Phase-out of fossil fuel vehicles means stopping selling and using
    vehicles which are powered by fossil fuels, such as gasoline, diesel,
    kerosene and fuel oil: it is one of the three most important parts of the general fossil fuel phase-out process, the others being the phase-out of
    fossil fuel power plants for electricity generation and decarbonization of industry.[1]"

    "Countries with proposed bans or implementing 100% sales of zero-emissions vehicles include China, Japan, Singapore, the UK, South Korea, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Slovenia, Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Canada, the 12 U.S. states that adhered to
    California's Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) Program, Sri Lanka, Cabo Verde,
    and Costa Rica.[2]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles

    Certainly, these actions will help. It remains to be seen if they will be sufficient.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 25 07:56:41 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 10:25:55 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 >degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.
    Hilarious. Any oil, gas, or coal that you don't want, the Chinese and Indians and Africans and South Americans will be glad to take off your hands. The Australians will sell them as many megatons of coal as they
    can shove into their new power plants.

    The Russians and Saudis (and Americans) will cheerfully furnish oil
    and gas.

    A billion people on Earth don't have electricity, heat, decent
    shelter, or clean water. They will get it, even though w(h)iney Tesla-driving air-conditioned jet-set New York Times subscribers want
    to keep them poor.

    Does anyone know what is wrong with the brain of this curmudgeon? Why does he paint anyone who doesn't share his fantasies as evil and selfish? At some point the conversation is no longer about the issue, because while he mentions energy, he isn't
    really talking about energy, he is talking about what people think.

    God, he lives in such a miserable world.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 25 07:25:38 2022
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 12:34:27 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> >>>> wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett
    <spamme@not.com> wrote:

    [...]

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's >>>>>>>> fairly nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    Excellent. We need more.

    We don't need the temperature rise.

    Actually, it's good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument. We are not in an ice age.

    Did I say we were? I thought I said that temps are up from the LIA. We
    are actually in a fairly rare inter-glacial period, which is why you
    and me are alive.

    Rising temperatures due to CO2
    from burning fossil fuels are causing severe hurricanes and heat waves >>>which kill people and cause great damage. Rising temperatures are
    melting glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica, causing flooding in
    coastal areas.



    Sea level is increasing about 2mm per year. Kids with plastic shovels
    and pails of sand could keep up with that.

    As humans continue to pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, oceans
    have tempered the effect. The world's seas have absorbed more than 90
    percent of the heat from these gases, but its taking a toll on our
    oceans: 2021 set a new record for ocean heating.

    Rising seas is one of those climate change effects. Average sea levels
    have swelled over 8 inches (about 23 cm) since 1880, with about three of >those inches gained in the last 25 years. Every year, the sea rises
    another .13 inches (3.2 mm.) New research published on February 15, 2022 >shows that sea level rise is accelerating and projected to rise by a foot
    by 2050.

    That translates into as much sea level rise in the next 30 years as
    occurred over the last century, according to the National Oceanic and >Atmospheric Administrations latest technical data, which updates 2017 >projections with the most precise estimates yet.

    Rick Spinrad, the NOAA administrator, called the findings historic, and >warned that the projected rise will occur regardless, even if carbon >emissions are drastically cut. In the United States, the most vulnerable >populations live on the East and Gulf Coasts, where damaging flooding is >predicted to occur 10 times more often in 2050 than it does today.

    Coral islands are mostly getting bigger. I guess the corals like warm
    water and lots of CO2.

    Don't build a ranch-style house on the beach. Obama and his pals are
    all building ocean-front estates where they have parties without
    masks.



    Permafrost in Siberia is melting, releasing huge quantities of methane,
    a potent greenhouse gas. This causes further increases in temperature, >>>which causes further melting.

    Fear and neurosis and hysteria. It's beautiful outside. I like it.

    Weather is not climate.

    The dangers are real. Many countries are implementing plans to reduce CO2 >emissions.

    From Wikipedia:

    "Contemporary climate change includes both global warming and its impacts
    on Earth's weather patterns. There have been previous periods of climate >change, but the current changes are distinctly more rapid and not due to >natural causes.[2] Instead, they are caused by the emission of greenhouse >gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane. Burning fossil fuels for >energy use creates most of these emissions. Agriculture, steelmaking,
    cement production, and forest loss are additional sources.[3] Greenhouse >gases are transparent to sunlight, allowing it through to heat the Earth's >surface. When the Earth emits that heat as infrared radiation the gases >absorb it, trapping the heat near the Earth's surface. As the planet heats
    up it causes changes like the loss of sunlight-reflecting snow cover, >amplifying global warming.[4]"

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

    The Paris Agreement

    The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate >change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December
    2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016.

    Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 >degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.



    Hilarious. Any oil, gas, or coal that you don't want, the Chinese and
    Indians and Africans and South Americans will be glad to take off your
    hands. The Australians will sell them as many megatons of coal as they
    can shove into their new power plants.

    The Russians and Saudis (and Americans) will cheerfully furnish oil
    and gas.

    A billion people on Earth don't have electricity, heat, decent
    shelter, or clean water. They will get it, even though w(h)iney
    Tesla-driving air-conditioned jet-set New York Times subscribers want
    to keep them poor.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 25 10:52:04 2022
    On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 5:45:12 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

    The best thing about Trump is how ballistic he makes certain people.

    That sounds like a recommendation for a riot organizer.
    People being ballistic is... unhealthy.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 25 12:54:29 2022
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:39:34 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> >>>> wrote:

    [...]

    We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it's
    fairly nasty.

    Fossile fuels produce CO2.

    Excellent. We need more.

    We don't need the temperature rise.

    Actually, it's good. Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.

    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/


    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 25 14:56:11 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.
    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth, and only the immediate-ambient-temperature effects are in that assessment.
    There wouldn't be a Paris Accord if we were blind outside that one spot.

    Remove blinders and take in more information.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 25 15:32:12 2022
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.
    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth,

    Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
    disaster for, what, 50 years now?

    Remember The Population Bomb, Peak Oil, mass starvation? 1/5 of the US population dead from AIDS?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwry3ehftrzvgzc/CO2-GDP_Curves.jpg?raw=1

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/a19stdo3bbm2zyk/World_Grain.jpg?raw=1

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth


    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 25 16:07:02 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.
    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth,

    Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
    disaster for, what, 50 years now?

    Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world's wheat crop, that was twelve
    years ago. <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports>

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 25 18:07:18 2022
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.
    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth,

    Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
    disaster for, what, 50 years now?

    Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world's wheat crop, that was twelve
    years ago. ><https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports>

    If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe in fear of the
    simulated end of the world, well, enjoy.

    Things seem to be getting steadily, remarkably better to me.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Fri Feb 25 17:17:22 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:32:31 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.
    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth,
    Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
    disaster for, what, 50 years now?

    Remember The Population Bomb, Peak Oil, mass starvation? 1/5 of the US population dead from AIDS?

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/fwry3ehftrzvgzc/CO2-GDP_Curves.jpg?raw=1

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/0tm8wyli83nt1v4/human-progress.jpg?raw=1

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/a19stdo3bbm2zyk/World_Grain.jpg?raw=1

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    This is the person who ridiculed the prediction that 250,000 would die of Covid in the US by the end of 2020. We actually hit that number in November and nearly reached 400,000 by year end. Now we can expect to see the count at 1,000,000 before the end
    of March. Yet he still mocks those who take the disease seriously.

    His misunderstanding of the basic concepts he ridicules is amazing. His inconsistency is equally amazing. The NASA link about excess CO2 being part of greening the earth is entirely based on computer models. Computer models that he so often ridicules
    as meaning nothing when analyzing global warming. Perhaps Larkin has multiple personalities? Part of him says "maybe", part of him says "maybe not".

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 25 18:42:12 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:07:33 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    <snip>

    Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
    disaster for, what, 50 years now?

    Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world's wheat crop, that was twelve
    years ago.

    <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports>

    If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe in fear of the simulated end of the world, well, enjoy.

    Things seem to be getting steadily, remarkably better to me.

    That's because John Larkin lets climate change denial propagandists like Anthony Watts snip his facts for him.
    If you don't know much - and John Larkin is remarkably ignorant - you are a sitting duck for propaganda.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 25 18:35:05 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth,

    Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
    disaster for, what, 50 years now?

    Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world's wheat crop, that was twelve
    years ago. ><https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports>

    If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

    No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the
    future is only better if it's a scaled-up version of today.

    Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
    capacity of this globe.

    Quality, not quantity, is what we can most improve. That means less greenhouse gas.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 25 20:09:26 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 10:44:09 PM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:35:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth,

    Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
    disaster for, what, 50 years now?

    Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world's wheat crop, that was twelve
    years ago.
    <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports>

    If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

    No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the
    future is only better if it's a scaled-up version of today.
    More food and more electricity sounds good to me.

    In the US, both food and electricity kill people. Probably the food more than the electricity.

    How did more electricity come out of global warming again? I think I missed that.


    Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
    capacity of this globe.
    If technology and more CO2 increases crop yield per acre by a factor
    of 10 or so, we don't need as much farmland to feed the world.

    Sorry, you are combining technology with CO2? A tenfold increase in crop production has little to do with CO2 levels. You can be pretty funny sometimes.


    Once half the population was farmers and they barely fed themselves.
    The USA now has under 2% farmers and we have cheap reliable food and surpluses to export.

    We have a moral obligation to help the poorest people escape poverty
    and hunger. Energy and fertilizers and education are required to do
    that.

    Yes, and global warming is not a needed part.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Fri Feb 25 19:43:52 2022
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:35:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth,

    Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
    disaster for, what, 50 years now?

    Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world's wheat crop, that was twelve
    years ago.
    <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports>

    If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

    No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the
    future is only better if it's a scaled-up version of today.

    More food and more electricity sounds good to me.


    Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
    capacity of this globe.

    If technology and more CO2 increases crop yield per acre by a factor
    of 10 or so, we don't need as much farmland to feed the world.

    Once half the population was farmers and they barely fed themselves.
    The USA now has under 2% farmers and we have cheap reliable food and
    surpluses to export.

    We have a moral obligation to help the poorest people escape poverty
    and hunger. Energy and fertilizers and education are required to do
    that.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 25 20:22:18 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 2:44:09 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:35:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>wrote: >On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 16:07:02 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 3:32:31 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth,

    Yes, expected any minute now. We have been 6 or 10 or 12 years from
    disaster for, what, 50 years now?

    Oh, as to the epic fires that took out 5% of the world's wheat crop, that was twelve
    years ago.

    <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/05/vladimir-putin-ban-grain-exports>

    If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

    No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the future is only better if it's a scaled-up version of today.

    More food and more electricity sounds good to me.

    Neither of which depend on burning more fossil carbon.

    Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
    capacity of this globe.

    If technology and more CO2 increases crop yield per acre by a factor of 10 or so, we don't need as much farmland to feed the world.

    More CO2 doesn't increase crop yield by more than a few percent - plants also need water, accessible nitrogen (nitrates, or urea) phosphate and so forth.

    Technology can be more helpful, but that doesn't depend on burning fossil carbon.

    Once half the population was farmers and they barely fed themselves.
    The USA now has under 2% farmers and we have cheap reliable food and surpluses to export.

    That was the agricultural revolution, and it preceded steam power and the industrial revolution by quite a bit.

    We have a moral obligation to help the poorest people escape poverty and hunger. Energy and fertilizers and education are required to do that.

    None of which depend on burning fossil carbon. That was the route we took when we knew a lot less than we do today. John Larkin's point of view does seem to stuck on coal-fired energy sources.

    I yam what I yam - Popeye.

    Relentlessly ignorant and depressingly gullible.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Fri Feb 25 23:23:12 2022
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:35:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

    No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the
    future is only better if it's a scaled-up version of today.

    More food and more electricity sounds good to me.

    Yeah, it sounds good. It's a shallow view of course, because it comes from John Larkin.
    Blinders OFF, and that's not what you see.

    In other words, a scaled-up version of today. Note, however, that the 'more food'
    presumes more people who eat the food, and drink water, yet have low population density
    (or very good sewage treatment). More is NOT better if the river runs dry, the
    fields revert to desert, the hospitals cannot cope and illness sweeps through the
    population. Sewage treatment, and electricity: a dry river hurts both.

    Texas has currently 13 million cattle.
    That's less than in 1975 (16 million), but for now, there's enough water and grass for that many.
    In 1975, US population was 215 million, now it's 332 million. So, where's your 'more food'
    story that covers this? Beef per person has gone down near a factor of two. Price is up,
    though.

    Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
    capacity of this globe.

    If technology and more CO2 increases crop yield per acre by a factor
    of 10 ....

    Huh? What disciple of Nostradamus told you that was going to happen?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Sat Feb 26 08:11:52 2022
    On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in <ab91f577-c16a-4314-a21a-119729999065n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.
    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth, and only the immediate-ambient-temperature effects are in that assessment.
    There wouldn't be a Paris Accord if we were blind outside that one spot.

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    It is all about manipulating (or was it marsupilami?) the masses and selling

    CO2 levels have been much higher and are cyclic with warm and cold periods (ice ages if you will).

    Human beans better have nuclear power plants to run their aircos and heaters else population will
    go dinos way in large areas.
    The last 2 Adam and Eva humming beans on earth will have to know all about how to run that stuff.

    Just a matter of time

    Elon's kids will watch it all from some far away planet.

    rt.com RT (Russia Today) is blocked in the Netherlands, good I have a sat dish, maybe EU will
    kill that channel too like they did their German speaking channel.


    Remove blinders and take in more information.

    We are depending on all that 'tronics, does not take much to become blind and only hear for
    example biden's vacuum brain echos.

    I like it if it gets warmer, was freezing here tonight.
    Higher temperatures and close to the sea here can create good tourist places. Some orange trees and coconut trees would be nice.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Sat Feb 26 06:57:40 2022
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 08:11:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd ><whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in ><ab91f577-c16a-4314-a21a-119729999065n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.
    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth, and only the immediate-ambient-temperature effects are in that assessment.
    There wouldn't be a Paris Accord if we were blind outside that one spot.

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    It is all about manipulating (or was it marsupilami?) the masses and selling

    Doom sells. And keeps selling. "Ignore all our failed predictions. We
    have bigger computers now."


    CO2 levels have been much higher and are cyclic with warm and cold periods (ice ages if you will).

    Human beans better have nuclear power plants to run their aircos and heaters else population will
    go dinos way in large areas.
    The last 2 Adam and Eva humming beans on earth will have to know all about how to run that stuff.

    Just a matter of time

    Elon's kids will watch it all from some far away planet.

    rt.com RT (Russia Today) is blocked in the Netherlands, good I have a sat dish, maybe EU will
    kill that channel too like they did their German speaking channel.

    The Netherlands blocks web sites? Who decides?



    Remove blinders and take in more information.

    We are depending on all that 'tronics, does not take much to become blind and only hear for
    example biden's vacuum brain echos.

    I like it if it gets warmer, was freezing here tonight.
    Higher temperatures and close to the sea here can create good tourist places. >Some orange trees and coconut trees would be nice.

    Maybe there is a reason that people build glass greenhouses and pump
    them up to 1000 PPM or so CO2.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 26 06:51:05 2022
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 23:23:12 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:35:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

    No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the
    future is only better if it's a scaled-up version of today.

    More food and more electricity sounds good to me.

    Yeah, it sounds good. It's a shallow view of course, because it comes from John Larkin.

    I can say something that is arguably, or absolutely, true, and a gang
    of idiots here will instantly refute it without stopping to google or
    think. That's kind of fun.


    Blinders OFF, and that's not what you see.

    In other words, a scaled-up version of today. Note, however, that the 'more food'
    presumes more people who eat the food, and drink water, yet have low population density
    (or very good sewage treatment). More is NOT better if the river runs dry, the
    fields revert to desert, the hospitals cannot cope and illness sweeps through the
    population. Sewage treatment, and electricity: a dry river hurts both.

    Texas has currently 13 million cattle.
    That's less than in 1975 (16 million), but for now, there's enough water and grass for that many.
    In 1975, US population was 215 million, now it's 332 million. So, where's your 'more food'
    story that covers this? Beef per person has gone down near a factor of two. Price is up,
    though.

    Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
    capacity of this globe.

    If technology and more CO2 increases crop yield per acre by a factor
    of 10 ....

    Huh? What disciple of Nostradamus told you that was going to happen?

    I post links to solid sources, you snip them.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 26 09:07:41 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 9:51:20 AM UTC-5, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 23:23:12 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:35:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

    No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the
    future is only better if it's a scaled-up version of today.

    More food and more electricity sounds good to me.

    Yeah, it sounds good. It's a shallow view of course, because it comes from John Larkin.
    I can say something that is arguably, or absolutely, true, and a gang
    of idiots here will instantly refute it without stopping to google or
    think. That's kind of fun.

    So posting to create a response, not thinking, but purely emotional response. That is the very definition of a troll. Nice to see Larkin admit it. Many of us have been pointing it out for some time now.


    Blinders OFF, and that's not what you see.

    In other words, a scaled-up version of today. Note, however, that the 'more food'
    presumes more people who eat the food, and drink water, yet have low population density
    (or very good sewage treatment). More is NOT better if the river runs dry, the
    fields revert to desert, the hospitals cannot cope and illness sweeps through the
    population. Sewage treatment, and electricity: a dry river hurts both.

    Texas has currently 13 million cattle.
    That's less than in 1975 (16 million), but for now, there's enough water and grass for that many.
    In 1975, US population was 215 million, now it's 332 million. So, where's your 'more food'
    story that covers this? Beef per person has gone down near a factor of two. Price is up,
    though.

    Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
    capacity of this globe.

    If technology and more CO2 increases crop yield per acre by a factor
    of 10 ....

    Huh? What disciple of Nostradamus told you that was going to happen?
    I post links to solid sources, you snip them.

    LOL

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 26 09:09:25 2022
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 06:57:40 -0800, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com
    wrote:

    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 08:11:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd >><whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in >><ab91f577-c16a-4314-a21a-119729999065n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> >>>> wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.
    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth, and only the immediate-ambient-temperature effects are in that assessment.
    There wouldn't be a Paris Accord if we were blind outside that one spot.

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    It is all about manipulating (or was it marsupilami?) the masses and selling

    Doom sells. And keeps selling. "Ignore all our failed predictions. We
    have bigger computers now."


    CO2 levels have been much higher and are cyclic with warm and cold periods (ice ages if you will).

    Human beans better have nuclear power plants to run their aircos and heaters else population will
    go dinos way in large areas.
    The last 2 Adam and Eva humming beans on earth will have to know all about how to run that stuff.

    Just a matter of time

    Elon's kids will watch it all from some far away planet.

    rt.com RT (Russia Today) is blocked in the Netherlands, good I have a sat dish, maybe EU will
    kill that channel too like they did their German speaking channel.

    The Netherlands blocks web sites? Who decides?



    Remove blinders and take in more information.

    We are depending on all that 'tronics, does not take much to become blind and only hear for
    example biden's vacuum brain echos.

    I like it if it gets warmer, was freezing here tonight.
    Higher temperatures and close to the sea here can create good tourist places. >>Some orange trees and coconut trees would be nice.

    Maybe there is a reason that people build glass greenhouses and pump
    them up to 1000 PPM or so CO2.

    It is ironic that the dreaded "greenhouse effect" is named after,
    well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

    Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

    There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out
    in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid microclimate.



    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Sat Feb 26 09:23:49 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:09:41 PM UTC-5, John Larkin wrote:

    It is ironic that the dreaded "greenhouse effect" is named after,
    well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

    Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

    There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out
    in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid microclimate.

    I wonder if there is a name for the condition where someone has above average intelligence in one area, but is severely deficient in other areas? Oh, yeah, idiot savant.

    I especially like the fact that Larkin refuses to believe the evidence regarding AGW in part because the predictions are made using computer simulations. Then he presents a NASA study to support his notion that all is well with rising CO2 because it
    also has a positive effect on plant growth... a study based on computer simulations.

    Yeah, well, the "idiot" part of the term certainly applies.

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 26 11:08:34 2022
    On 26 Feb 2022 18:56:00 GMT, Robert Latest <boblatest@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    Rick C wrote:
    I especially like the fact that Larkin refuses to believe the evidence
    regarding AGW in part because the predictions are made using computer
    simulations. Then he presents a NASA study to support his notion that all is
    well with rising CO2 because it also has a positive effect on plant growth...
    a study based on computer simulations.

    After humanity has kicked Earth's climate into some wild oscillations I'm sure >it will again settle into some metastable condition that is well suited for >certain species (like the past 12k years were for humans).

    When has earth's climate ever settled?

    Question is, what
    will human civilization (the only thing interesting in this context) look like >during and after that rollercoaster ride. It's out of the question that the >ride will happen --it is happening--, but I don't see us taking any action >trying to make it less wild.

    Looks nice outside to me.

    The next ice age will be very bad news. We can probably mitigate that.
    CO2 wouldn't be enough, but it might be part of the plan.



    --

    If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
    but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties. Francis Bacon

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Latest@21:1/5 to Rick C on Sat Feb 26 18:56:00 2022
    Rick C wrote:
    I especially like the fact that Larkin refuses to believe the evidence regarding AGW in part because the predictions are made using computer simulations. Then he presents a NASA study to support his notion that all is well with rising CO2 because it also has a positive effect on plant growth... a study based on computer simulations.

    After humanity has kicked Earth's climate into some wild oscillations I'm sure it will again settle into some metastable condition that is well suited for certain species (like the past 12k years were for humans). Question is, what will human civilization (the only thing interesting in this context) look like during and after that rollercoaster ride. It's out of the question that the ride will happen --it is happening--, but I don't see us taking any action trying to make it less wild.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sat Feb 26 11:21:04 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded
    to their internal problems in 1980 with the 'one-child policy'. So,
    was the prediction wrong?

    It is all about manipulating (or was it marsupilami?) the masses and selling

    Huh? It's about a problem that requires large-scale solution, why would you want the 'masses'' uninformed?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Sat Feb 26 11:36:18 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 11:08:48 AM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:


    When has earth's climate ever settled?

    On the one-century time scale, almost always.
    On the one-month time scale, possibly never.
    On the one-millenium time scale, sometimes no.

    That's not an interesting question.

    The next ice age will be very bad news. We can probably mitigate that.

    That's a milleniums-scale speculation; no one alive today has any oar in
    the water on that issue; we won't interact with that problem during our lifetimes.
    It's a modern variant on the angels-dancing-on-a-pinhead "issue".

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 26 20:39:47 2022
    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 06:57:40 -0800) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <bkfk1hl1blk0ajccka7prpvtp34qo4ta0g@4ax.com>:

    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 08:11:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd >><whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in >><ab91f577-c16a-4314-a21a-119729999065n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> >>>> wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.
    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth, and only the immediate-ambient-temperature effects are in that assessment.
    There wouldn't be a Paris Accord if we were blind outside that one spot.

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    It is all about manipulating (or was it marsupilami?) the masses and selling

    Doom sells. And keeps selling. "Ignore all our failed predictions. We
    have bigger computers now."


    CO2 levels have been much higher and are cyclic with warm and cold periods (ice ages if you will).

    Human beans better have nuclear power plants to run their aircos and heaters else population will
    go dinos way in large areas.
    The last 2 Adam and Eva humming beans on earth will have to know all about how to run that stuff.

    Just a matter of time

    Elon's kids will watch it all from some far away planet.

    rt.com RT (Russia Today) is blocked in the Netherlands, good I have a sat dish, maybe EU will
    kill that channel too like they did their German speaking channel.

    The Netherlands blocks web sites? Who decides?

    Dunno, connection just came back
    Could have been a denial of service attack, any kid can do that.
    I have read some hacker group will go anti-Russia.



    Remove blinders and take in more information.

    We are depending on all that 'tronics, does not take much to become blind and only hear for
    example biden's vacuum brain echos.

    I like it if it gets warmer, was freezing here tonight.
    Higher temperatures and close to the sea here can create good tourist places. >>Some orange trees and coconut trees would be nice.

    Maybe there is a reason that people build glass greenhouses and pump
    them up to 1000 PPM or so CO2.

    Grow drugs ;-)?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 26 12:42:13 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded >to their internal problems in 1980 with the 'one-child policy'. So,
    was the prediction wrong?

    Very wrong.

    What does 'very wrong' mean, is that a moral judgment?

    ...Their "computer simulation" didn't account for progress.

    So, you think the 'one child' policy is progress? And that it
    wasn't part of the input to the analysis?

    The 'progress' word is a lame excuse for something, I'm just not sure what.

    They didn't even get the sign right.

    What sign? That statement makes no sense, either.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology. on Sat Feb 26 20:39:47 2022
    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:09:25 -0800) it happened John Larkin <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in <sumk1hlkkb8ui9ga60ujumalk39va3baop@4ax.com>:

    It is ironic that the dreaded "greenhouse effect" is named after,
    well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

    Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

    There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out
    in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid >microclimate.

    Yes -23 C is very cold
    I remember getting of a bus at the wrong stop it was -40 C and had to walk in jeans ....
    Somehow I seem to have good temperature control, heat does not change me much either
    Miami beach :-)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Sat Feb 26 20:39:47 2022
    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in <cb305708-5dd6-46b2-a3e7-9450be5aa670n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded
    to their internal problems in 1980 with the 'one-child policy'. So,
    was the prediction wrong?

    It is all about manipulating (or was it marsupilami?) the masses and selling

    Huh? It's about a problem that requires large-scale solution, why would you >want the 'masses'' uninformed?

    Yes, climate will change, a glacial period will be followed by a warm period over and over again.
    Our CO2 reduction does not change that.
    We need to have the knowledge and pass on the knowledge how to create
    the energy we need to keep living, to the next generation.
    This did not happen, most are green-minded and destroy old technologies and know nothing
    about how to build anything.

    As to the masses and 'informed'
    it has always? been like it is today, some leader or bunch of guys controlling a puppet convince the masses
    of some idea, right or wrong, the masses move like lemmings..
    Vietnam war
    you are drafted, you shall fight, else punishment, chance you die 50%.
    US used Agent orange, US used depleted uranium ammo in Iraq... US designed covid
    and killed millions, US designed covid medicines that killed millions because of side effects
    profit industry make war in Europe, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, destabilize countries like for example Venezuela, Cuba
    US sells snake oil, US put tariffs on imports, US has more debt than a third world country.
    Thousand died from 'medicines' opioids
    the masses ARE uninformed, they are played by industry for profit and politicians for power and ego and insane ideas.
    You do not need to know anything to be a politician, as long as people believe in you, your illusions.
    It has always been like that .. the Roman empire fell, maybe the little ice age helped..
    _No empire yet_ has persisted,

    The masses....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 26 12:33:49 2022
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded
    to their internal problems in 1980 with the 'one-child policy'. So,
    was the prediction wrong?

    Very wrong. Their "computer simulation" didn't account for progress.
    They didn't even get the sign right.

    "the Club of Rome was doing amateur dynamics without a license,
    without a proper qualification. And they were doing it badly, so I got
    steamed up about that"

    China is facing an aging population and 1.7 births per woman. Their
    immediate problem isn't too much reproduction, it's too little.





    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Sat Feb 26 13:12:18 2022
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 20:39:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:09:25 -0800) it happened John Larkin ><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in ><sumk1hlkkb8ui9ga60ujumalk39va3baop@4ax.com>:

    It is ironic that the dreaded "greenhouse effect" is named after,
    well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

    Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

    There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out
    in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid >>microclimate.

    Yes -23 C is very cold
    I remember getting of a bus at the wrong stop it was -40 C and had to walk in jeans ....
    Somehow I seem to have good temperature control, heat does not change me much either
    Miami beach :-)

    I have a friend who always skis in shorts. Cold doesn't bother him.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mike Monett@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 26 21:23:06 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 12:34:27 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:
    [...]

    The Paris Agreement

    The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate >>change. It was adopted by 196 Parties at COP 21 in Paris, on 12 December >>2015 and entered into force on 4 November 2016.

    Its goal is to limit global warming to well below 2, preferably to 1.5 >>degrees Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels.

    Hilarious. Any oil, gas, or coal that you don't want, the Chinese and
    Indians and Africans and South Americans will be glad to take off your
    hands. The Australians will sell them as many megatons of coal as they
    can shove into their new power plants.

    The Paris Agreement bans oil, gas and coal plants. The chinese have very
    bad air pollution from burning coal. They are developing a Molten Salt
    Reactor to get away from the need to burn fossil fuels.

    India is also looking at Molten Salt, as well as pebble bed for the same reason.

    China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world's
    largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
    for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
    coal.

    The Russians and Saudis (and Americans) will cheerfully furnish oil
    and gas.

    About 93 percent of the natural gas consumed in the United States is
    produced within U.S. borders; much of the rest about 5 Bcf per day (7
    percent) comes from Canada, which also has a substantial natural gas supply base.

    Biden has cancelled recent leases on oil exploration.

    Keystone XL, which was proposed in 2008 to bring oil from Canada's Western
    tar sands to U.S. refiners, was halted by owner TC Energy Corp (TRP.TO)
    after U.S. President Joe Biden this year revoked a key permit needed for a
    U.S. stretch of the 1,200-mile project.

    The fossil fuel industry has tremendous inertia and cannot stop on a dime.
    But change is happening.

    A billion people on Earth don't have electricity, heat, decent
    shelter, or clean water. They will get it, even though w(h)iney
    Tesla-driving air-conditioned jet-set New York Times subscribers want
    to keep them poor.

    Why? How can they buy things if they have no money?

    Your solution? Put Trump back in power?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 26 13:34:38 2022
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:42:13 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote: >> >
    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded >> >to their internal problems in 1980 with the 'one-child policy'. So,
    was the prediction wrong?

    Very wrong.

    What does 'very wrong' mean, is that a moral judgment?

    No. Average calories per person. Annual oil and gas production.
    Running out of metals. Population collapse. All wrong.




    ...Their "computer simulation" didn't account for progress.

    So, you think the 'one child' policy is progress? And that it
    wasn't part of the input to the analysis?

    The 'progress' word is a lame excuse for something, I'm just not sure what.


    Food. Water. Housing. Electricity. Transport. Education. Medical care.
    Things we have and other people want.

    Think about it.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Sat Feb 26 13:25:29 2022
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 20:39:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 06:57:40 -0800) it happened >jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in ><bkfk1hl1blk0ajccka7prpvtp34qo4ta0g@4ax.com>:

    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 08:11:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd >>><whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote in >>><ab91f577-c16a-4314-a21a-119729999065n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> >>>>> wrote:

    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.
    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth, and only the immediate-ambient-temperature effects are in that assessment.
    There wouldn't be a Paris Accord if we were blind outside that one spot. >>>
    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    It is all about manipulating (or was it marsupilami?) the masses and selling >>
    Doom sells. And keeps selling. "Ignore all our failed predictions. We
    have bigger computers now."


    CO2 levels have been much higher and are cyclic with warm and cold periods (ice ages if you will).

    Human beans better have nuclear power plants to run their aircos and heaters else population will
    go dinos way in large areas.
    The last 2 Adam and Eva humming beans on earth will have to know all about how to run that stuff.

    Just a matter of time

    Elon's kids will watch it all from some far away planet.

    rt.com RT (Russia Today) is blocked in the Netherlands, good I have a sat dish, maybe EU will
    kill that channel too like they did their German speaking channel.

    The Netherlands blocks web sites? Who decides?

    Dunno, connection just came back
    Could have been a denial of service attack, any kid can do that.
    I have read some hacker group will go anti-Russia.



    Remove blinders and take in more information.

    We are depending on all that 'tronics, does not take much to become blind and only hear for
    example biden's vacuum brain echos.

    I like it if it gets warmer, was freezing here tonight.
    Higher temperatures and close to the sea here can create good tourist places.
    Some orange trees and coconut trees would be nice.

    Maybe there is a reason that people build glass greenhouses and pump
    them up to 1000 PPM or so CO2.

    Grow drugs ;-)?

    Yes. And roses, orchids, tomatoes, ferns, all sorts of stuff. Plants
    seem to like roughly 1100 PPM CO2 best.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 26 16:32:15 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:42:13 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote: >> >
    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded
    to their internal problems in 1980 with the 'one-child policy'. So,
    was the prediction wrong?

    Very wrong.

    What does 'very wrong' mean, is that a moral judgment?

    No. Average calories per person. Annual oil and gas production.

    Average isn't the best measure, because fluctuations in food supply can kill you before
    the next harvest is ready. Also, calories, of course, aren't the only food value; how
    about protein, amines? Beef isn't keeping up with population.

    Oil and gas production certainly IS limited; why would you think Club of Rome is wrong on that?

    Where's the beef? Where's the numbers?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Sat Feb 26 17:10:48 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

    China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world's
    largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
    coal.

    Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to gnuarm.del...@gmail.com on Sat Feb 26 17:58:24 2022
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

    China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world's largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
    for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate coal.
    Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?

    It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

    The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3). The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen
    to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term
    solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia's electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

    https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

    The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 26 18:09:12 2022
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 1:51:20 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 23:23:12 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 7:44:09 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 18:35:05 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 6:07:33 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    If you are determined to snip the facts and cringe...

    No, not cringing; crusading, rather, for a better future. You, apparently, think the
    future is only better if it's a scaled-up version of today.

    More food and more electricity sounds good to me.

    Yeah, it sounds good. It's a shallow view of course, because it comes from John Larkin.

    I can say something that is arguably, or absolutely, true, and a gang of idiots here will instantly refute it without stopping to google or think. That's kind of fun.

    What John Larkin may imagine to be arguably or absolutely true can be so obviously wrong that one doesn't need to go to go to google to point out the error.

    John Larkin's habit of re-posting the same climate change denial propaganda, year after year does make this easy. He does seem to think that mindlessly making the same mistake over and over again is "fun".

    Blinders OFF, and that's not what you see.

    In other words, a scaled-up version of today. Note, however, that the 'more food'
    presumes more people who eat the food, and drink water, yet have low population density
    (or very good sewage treatment). More is NOT better if the river runs dry, the
    fields revert to desert, the hospitals cannot cope and illness sweeps through the
    population. Sewage treatment, and electricity: a dry river hurts both.

    Texas has currently 13 million cattle.
    That's less than in 1975 (16 million), but for now, there's enough water and grass for that many.
    In 1975, US population was 215 million, now it's 332 million. So, where's your 'more food'
    story that covers this? Beef per person has gone down near a factor of two. Price is up,
    though.

    Alas, the arable land area is NOT going to scale up. Neither is the available radiative cooling
    capacity of this globe.

    If technology and more CO2 increases crop yield per acre by a factor
    of 10 ....

    Huh? What disciple of Nostradamus told you that was going to happen?

    I post links to solid sources, you snip them.

    Jojhn Larkin seems to think that a link to Anthony Watts climate change denial site is a link to a solid source. The English term "thick as brick" does come to mind.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Sat Feb 26 18:51:30 2022
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:32:15 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:42:13 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded
    to their internal problems in 1980 with the 'one-child policy'. So,
    was the prediction wrong?

    Very wrong.

    What does 'very wrong' mean, is that a moral judgment?

    No. Average calories per person. Annual oil and gas production.

    Average isn't the best measure, because fluctuations in food supply can kill you before
    the next harvest is ready. Also, calories, of course, aren't the only food value; how
    about protein, amines? Beef isn't keeping up with population.


    OK, don't think.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Sat Feb 26 18:24:29 2022
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 4:09:41 AM UTC+11, John Larkin wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 06:57:40 -0800, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 08:11:52 GMT, Jan Panteltje <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
    On a sunny day (Fri, 25 Feb 2022 14:56:11 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <ab91f577-c16a-4314...@googlegroups.com>:
    On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 12:54:45 PM UTC-8, John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 07:43:11 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:
    jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

    Cold kills about 10x as many people as heat.

    False argument.

    My humble apologies. I got the number wrong.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/05/20/cold-weather-deaths/27657269/

    Yep, they got the number wrong, too. Fire, flood, and crop failures are all to be expected
    in a warming earth, and only the immediate-ambient-temperature effects are in that assessment.
    There wouldn't be a Paris Accord if we were blind outside that one spot. >>
    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.

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

    Doom sells. And keeps selling. "Ignore all our failed predictions. We have bigger computers now."

    Their first report was published in 1972. We do have much bigger computers now, not to mention much larger hard drives and a lot more data to put into those hard drives.

    <snipped Jan being even sillier than usual>

    Maybe there is a reason that people build glass greenhouses and pump them up to 1000 PPM or so CO2.

    Most of it is that there is a power station close by, so the CO2 is cheap. In a greenhouse you give plants all the water and fertiliser they need, so that can take advantage of extra CO2.

    It is ironic that the dreaded "greenhouse effect" is named after, well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

    Because they are also given all the water and fertiliser they can use. Extra CO2 is less helpful in less benign environments - plants mainly exploit it by having smaller stomata so that they can get all the CO2 they need while losing less water

    Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

    There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid microclimate.

    John Larkin confuses weather, local micro-climate and climate.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sat Feb 26 18:54:59 2022
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:42:04 AM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <cb305708-5dd6-46b2...@googlegroups.com>:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    <snip>

    Yes, climate will change, a glacial period will be followed by a warm period over and over again.

    It has been like that for the past few million years. On a geological time scale, this doesn't happen all that often

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

    Our CO2 reduction does not change that.

    The current CO2 level - 412 ppm - is higher than it has been for some 20 million years. For the last couple of million years the atmospheric CO2 level has flutuated between about 180 ppm (glacial period) and 270 ppm (interglacial).

    We need to have the knowledge and pass on the knowledge how to create the energy we need to keep living, to the next generation.

    There are lots of ways of doing that. Burning fossil carbon was cheap and easy, but fossil carbon is a finite resource. Getting more immediate access to the energy coming in form the sun does have lots of advantages but you need fairly high technology to
    get the amount of energy we seem to need at the moment.

    This did not happen, most are green-minded and destroy old technologies and know nothing about how to build anything.

    Jan certainly doesn't seem to.

    As to the masses and 'informed' it has always? been like it is today, some leader or bunch of guys controlling a puppet convince the masses of some idea, right or wrong, the masses move like lemmings..
    Vietnam war

    Odd how the lemmings staged massive anti-Vietnam war protests. I even showed up in one of them.

    you are drafted, you shall fight, else punishment, chance you die 50%.

    Nobody died evading the draft in the US. Dubbya and Trump both did it.

    US used Agent orange, US used depleted uranium ammo in Iraq... US designed covid
    and killed millions, US designed covid medicines that killed millions because of side effects

    According to Jan who is a sucker for particularly silly propaganda.

    profit industry make war in Europe, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, destabilize countries like for example Venezuela, Cuba

    Venezuala got destablished by oil industry profit-taking. It is now a mess. Cuba isn't any kind of mess. It's not a rich country, but it does have universal health, and its life expectancy is marginally better than the USA (79.18 versus 79.11)

    US sells snake oil, US put tariffs on imports, US has more debt than a third world country.
    Thousand died from 'medicines' opioids.

    But the people who sell them make billions.

    the masses ARE uninformed, they are played by industry for profit and politicians for power and ego and insane ideas.

    More so in the US where primary and secondary education are paid for by tiny school districts, and consequently mostly under-funded.

    You do not need to know anything to be a politician, as long as people believe in you, your illusions.

    But you do need professional to craft the kind of illusions that people will believe in. The largely under-educated American public is remarkably gullible, and doesn't gag at the most implausible delusions - look at John Larkin.

    It has always been like that .. the Roman empire fell, maybe the little ice age helped.. _No empire yet_ has persisted,

    Empires keep on doing what used to work for them. Their competitors are obliged to think up new ways of competing. Somebody eventually finds an empire-beating trick, and goes on to make the same mistake.

    The masses....

    Are a huge crowd of distinct individuals, some of whom can think for themselves. Jan doesn't seem to be one of those.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 26 18:56:15 2022
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 8:12:32 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 20:39:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonSt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:09:25 -0800) it happened John Larkin ><jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in ><sumk1hlkkb8ui9ga6...@4ax.com>:

    It is ironic that the dreaded "greenhouse effect" is named after,
    well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

    Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

    There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out
    in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid >>microclimate.

    Yes -23 C is very cold
    I remember getting of a bus at the wrong stop it was -40 C and had to walk in jeans ....
    Somehow I seem to have good temperature control, heat does not change me much either
    Miami beach :-)

    I have a friend who always skis in shorts. Cold doesn't bother him.

    James Arthur ignores lots of stuff that he shouldn't.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sat Feb 26 19:02:56 2022
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 1:51:46 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:32:15 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>wrote: >On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:42:13 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    <snip>

    Average isn't the best measure, because fluctuations in food supply can kill you before
    the next harvest is ready. Also, calories, of course, aren't the only food value; how
    about protein, amines? Beef isn't keeping up with population.

    OK, don't think.

    John Larkin has a funny idea of what might constitute thinking. This isn't entirely surprising. He doesn't seem to be able to think for himself at all, and doesn't seem to have clue about what might be involved in doing it for himself.

    In this context, he seems to think that "thinking" is agreeing with the nonsense that he has posted, and doesn't seem to realise that anybody who actually can think knows that he's a gullible twit.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat Feb 26 20:23:52 2022
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

    China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world's largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
    for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate coal.
    Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
    It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

    The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

    That doesn't get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.


    The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part time
    hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia's electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

    https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

    The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

    Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to gnuarm.del...@gmail.com on Sat Feb 26 21:27:11 2022
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

    China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world's largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
    for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate coal.
    Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
    It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

    The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

    That doesn't get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.

    It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten metal to
    convert some of that carbon into CO2.

    And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

    Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

    The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part
    time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia's electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

    https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

    The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

    Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

    My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren't all that specific.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat Feb 26 22:18:20 2022
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

    China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world's
    largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
    for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
    coal.
    Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
    It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

    The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

    That doesn't get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.
    It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten metal to
    convert some of that carbon into CO2.

    And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

    Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

    How does the electric arc furnace relate to reducing the production of CO2 in iron/steel making?

    How is the carbon added to make steel after electrolysis of ore to make carbon free iron?


    The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a part
    time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia's electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

    https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

    The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

    Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?
    My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren't all that specific.

    So burning to make H2O in steam turbines? Or in fuel cells?

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to William Sloman on Sun Feb 27 08:31:41 2022
    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 18:54:59 -0800 (PST)) it happened Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in <3ed5ddb7-deed-4bf3-b6e3-83fa9967c883n@googlegroups.com>:

    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:42:04 AM UTC+11, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST)) it happened whit3rd
    <whi...@gmail.com> wrote in <cb305708-5dd6-46b2...@googlegroups.com>:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    <snip>


    Yes, climate will change, a glacial period will be followed by a warm period >over and over again.

    It has been like that for the past few million years. On a geological time scale,
    this doesn't happen all that often

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

    Our CO2 reduction does not change that.

    The current CO2 level - 412 ppm - is higher than it has been for some 20 million
    years. For the last couple of million years the atmospheric CO2 level
    has flutuated between about 180 ppm (glacial period) and 270 ppm (interglacial).


    We need to have the knowledge and pass on the knowledge how to create the >energy we need to keep living, to the next generation.

    There are lots of ways of doing that. Burning fossil carbon was cheap and easy,
    but fossil carbon is a finite resource. Getting more immediate access to
    the energy coming in form the sun does have lots of advantages but you need >fairly high technology to get the amount of energy we seem to need at the >moment.

    This did not happen, most are green-minded and destroy old technologies and >know nothing about how to build anything.

    Jan certainly doesn't seem to.

    As to the masses and 'informed' it has always? been like it is today, some >leader or bunch of guys controlling a puppet convince the masses of some >idea, right or wrong, the masses move like lemmings..
    Vietnam war

    Odd how the lemmings staged massive anti-Vietnam war protests. I even showed >up in one of them.

    you are drafted, you shall fight, else punishment, chance you die 50%.

    Nobody died evading the draft in the US. Dubbya and Trump both did it.

    US used Agent orange, US used depleted uranium ammo in Iraq... US designed >covid
    and killed millions, US designed covid medicines that killed millions because
    of side effects

    According to Jan who is a sucker for particularly silly propaganda.

    profit industry make war in Europe, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, destabilize >countries like for example Venezuela, Cuba

    Venezuala got destablished by oil industry profit-taking. It is now a mess. >Cuba isn't any kind of mess. It's not a rich country, but it does have universal
    health, and its life expectancy is marginally better than the USA (79.18 >versus 79.11)

    US sells snake oil, US put tariffs on imports, US has more debt than a third >world country.
    Thousand died from 'medicines' opioids.

    But the people who sell them make billions.

    the masses ARE uninformed, they are played by industry for profit and politicians
    for power and ego and insane ideas.

    More so in the US where primary and secondary education are paid for by tiny >school districts, and consequently mostly under-funded.

    You do not need to know anything to be a politician, as long as people believe
    in you, your illusions.

    But you do need professional to craft the kind of illusions that people will >believe in. The largely under-educated American public is remarkably gullible, >and doesn't gag at the most implausible delusions - look at John Larkin.


    It has always been like that .. the Roman empire fell, maybe the little ice >age helped.. _No empire yet_ has persisted,

    Empires keep on doing what used to work for them. Their competitors are obliged
    to think up new ways of competing. Somebody eventually finds an empire-beating >trick, and goes on to make the same mistake.

    The masses....

    Are a huge crowd of distinct individuals, some of whom can think for themselves.
    Jan doesn't seem to be one of those.

    Yea, was a bit tired and in a hurry posting last night after coding for a whole day again
    to find things were screwed up by kids changing old good stuff..
    Better write your own libraries, I did for many things. Again sigh,

    So, as to glowball CO2 changes over the history versus temperature:
    https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages
    seems to be doing decent science
    Cause and effect ?

    What we will see is mass-migration (already much of affrica is moving here it seems, and US has invaded
    themselves, quite possible affrica will become more livable and then all blacks will
    say they are hostage... all that crap).

    If Netherlands actually flooded due to sea level rise where would people go? Siberia?
    Some DNA tinkerer could bring a dino or two back alive.. World would be interesting.
    Eventually sun will engulf earth and we will have to get out of here before that.
    Will it happen? We need political will to settle on other planets.
    Or maybe some insects will win, and migrate on one of our spacecraft and feel fine on some planet
    where we will not persist...
    Humming Species.. There must a a trillion variants across the universe, I know, I am one.

    Hard to tell, only 500 years ago nobody could have imagined your paintings alive in color
    and everybody looking at those every day, speaking into a small box and others seeing and hearing
    you thousands of miles away, electric lights, microwave cooking, planes, cars.. exponential!
    Followed by nuclear W3 of course and a ... years setback? but then again exponential is
    an almost magical thing.
    But tangents have this eeehh well mamaticians will know what I mean, 'destructive property in electronics'.
    :-)

    But what more is there to discover? We know shit yet.

    Flies are
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2022/02/220217141245.htm
    that reminds me of the article in the eighties by a German professor
    about neural networks and how just a few neurons could steer a car.
    Made me write some code back then, now AI is a big thing.
    We are, but for a few more, like that, or are we?
    We are (quantum..) all connected all across the universe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 27 09:06:24 2022
    On 26/02/22 21:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 20:39:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:09:25 -0800) it happened John Larkin
    <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
    <sumk1hlkkb8ui9ga60ujumalk39va3baop@4ax.com>:

    It is ironic that the dreaded "greenhouse effect" is named after,
    well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

    Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

    There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out
    in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid
    microclimate.

    Yes -23 C is very cold
    I remember getting of a bus at the wrong stop it was -40 C and had to walk in jeans ....
    Somehow I seem to have good temperature control, heat does not change me much either
    Miami beach :-)

    I have a friend who always skis in shorts. Cold doesn't bother him.

    I've seen many people skiing in bikinis. No problem until
    they fall down or the sun goes in.

    Doesn't change points about /climate/.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Gardner@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Sun Feb 27 09:07:39 2022
    On 27/02/22 02:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:32:15 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:42:13 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded
    to their internal problems in 1980 with the 'one-child policy'. So, >>>>>> was the prediction wrong?

    Very wrong.

    What does 'very wrong' mean, is that a moral judgment?

    No. Average calories per person. Annual oil and gas production.

    Average isn't the best measure, because fluctuations in food supply can kill you before
    the next harvest is ready. Also, calories, of course, aren't the only food value; how
    about protein, amines? Beef isn't keeping up with population.


    OK, don't think.

    Pot, kettle, black.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to gnuarm.del...@gmail.com on Sun Feb 27 04:52:38 2022
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

    China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world's
    largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
    for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
    coal.
    Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
    It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

    The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

    That doesn't get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.
    It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten metal
    to convert some of that carbon into CO2.

    And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

    Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

    How does the electric arc furnace relate to reducing the production of CO2 in iron/steel making?

    As you could have read before you posted that - " It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron."

    You can burn fossil carbon to get metallic iron hot enough to melt, but that isn't where most of the coking coal used to make steel from iron ore get used up

    How is the carbon added to make steel after electrolysis of ore to make carbon free iron?

    Any way the metallurgists like. If you get your soft iron hot enough in a reducing atmosphere and expose it to graphite, the carbon will diffuse through solid iron.

    Melt the soft iron - again in a reducing atmosphere - and sprinkle the graphite on the surface, then stir vigorously. Carbon diffuses even faster through liquid iron (which melts at 1538C). Graphite doesn't melt, and is less dense than liquid iron, so
    you would have to stir vigorously.

    What would be done in practice is anybody's guess. Nobody makes industrial quantities of iron by electrolysis at the moment, but metallurgist make all sorts of alloys in all sorts of ways and there's bound to be some approach that would just work.

    The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a
    part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia's electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

    https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

    The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

    Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

    My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren't all that specific.

    So burning to make H2O in steam turbines? Or in fuel cells?

    More likely in gas turbines. Fuel cells would be more efficient, but pushing the original electric power through a long undersea cable and leaving out the hydrogen completely would be roughly three times more efficient. Singapore seems to be close enough
    to Australia to make this ostensibly feasible. Japan and South Korea are a bit further away.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sun Feb 27 07:06:44 2022
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:52:46 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

    China has stopped importing Australian coal. Australia is the world's
    largest exporter of metallurgical (or coking) coal, used to make steel, not
    for burning. Work is progressing on Electric Arc furnaces to eliminate
    coal.
    Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
    It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

    The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

    That doesn't get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.
    It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten metal
    to convert some of that carbon into CO2.

    And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

    Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

    How does the electric arc furnace relate to reducing the production of CO2 in iron/steel making?
    As you could have read before you posted that - " It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron."

    Yes, I did, that's why I had to ask again as you seem to be going all around the issue but not addressing it.


    You can burn fossil carbon to get metallic iron hot enough to melt, but that isn't where most of the coking coal used to make steel from iron ore get used up
    How is the carbon added to make steel after electrolysis of ore to make carbon free iron?
    Any way the metallurgists like. If you get your soft iron hot enough in a reducing atmosphere and expose it to graphite, the carbon will diffuse through solid iron.

    Melt the soft iron - again in a reducing atmosphere - and sprinkle the graphite on the surface, then stir vigorously. Carbon diffuses even faster through liquid iron (which melts at 1538C). Graphite doesn't melt, and is less dense than liquid iron, so
    you would have to stir vigorously.

    What would be done in practice is anybody's guess. Nobody makes industrial quantities of iron by electrolysis at the moment, but metallurgist make all sorts of alloys in all sorts of ways and there's bound to be some approach that would just work.

    Ok, so this whole issue is a red herring. Thanks


    The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a
    part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia's electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

    https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

    The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

    Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

    My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren't all that specific.

    So burning to make H2O in steam turbines? Or in fuel cells?
    More likely in gas turbines. Fuel cells would be more efficient, but pushing the original electric power through a long undersea cable and leaving out the hydrogen completely would be roughly three times more efficient. Singapore seems to be close
    enough to Australia to make this ostensibly feasible. Japan and South Korea are a bit further away.

    If it is three times more efficient, what is not "feasible" about it? Are you saying the cable would be enormous? What are you saying exactly?

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Sun Feb 27 07:20:11 2022
    On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 09:06:24 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 26/02/22 21:12, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 20:39:47 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

    On a sunny day (Sat, 26 Feb 2022 09:09:25 -0800) it happened John Larkin >>> <jlarkin@highland_atwork_technology.com> wrote in
    <sumk1hlkkb8ui9ga60ujumalk39va3baop@4ax.com>:

    It is ironic that the dreaded "greenhouse effect" is named after,
    well, greenhouses. Places where plants flourish.

    Truckee hit -2F this morning. Too cold to ski in jeans.

    There was an official -11F this week, but the weather station is out
    in the open at the airport, exposed to the sky and in a local frigid
    microclimate.

    Yes -23 C is very cold
    I remember getting of a bus at the wrong stop it was -40 C and had to walk in jeans ....
    Somehow I seem to have good temperature control, heat does not change me much either
    Miami beach :-)

    I have a friend who always skis in shorts. Cold doesn't bother him.

    I've seen many people skiing in bikinis. No problem until
    they fall down or the sun goes in.

    Here's one, July 4 2011 at Sugar Bowl.

    https://www.dropbox.com/s/bgu1x1ajlk3rpit/July_4_Bikini.jpg?raw=1

    Aspen once had a streaking fad. One day the entire ski patrol made
    their last run down the mountain naked. The bad news is that it was
    all guys.


    Doesn't change points about /climate/.

    Really?



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk on Sun Feb 27 07:21:04 2022
    On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 09:07:39 +0000, Tom Gardner
    <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

    On 27/02/22 02:51, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:32:15 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 1:34:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 12:42:13 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:34:04 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 11:21:04 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 12:14:03 AM UTC-8, Jan Panteltje wrote:

    There was also "The club of Rome' predicting the end of everything or something.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Club_of_Rome

    Specifically, that was predicting overpopulation, in 1972; China responded
    to their internal problems in 1980 with the 'one-child policy'. So, >>>>>>> was the prediction wrong?

    Very wrong.

    What does 'very wrong' mean, is that a moral judgment?

    No. Average calories per person. Annual oil and gas production.

    Average isn't the best measure, because fluctuations in food supply can kill you before
    the next harvest is ready. Also, calories, of course, aren't the only food value; how
    about protein, amines? Beef isn't keeping up with population.


    OK, don't think.

    Pot, kettle, black.

    Thanks for the original contribution.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to gnuarm.del...@gmail.com on Sun Feb 27 20:01:08 2022
    On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 2:06:54 AM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:52:46 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 5:18:30 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:27:19 AM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 3:24:02 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 8:58:33 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 12:10:57 PM UTC+11, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 4:23:17 PM UTC-5, Mike Monett wrote:

    <snip>

    Can you explain how the Electric Arc furnace eliminates the use of coal in making steel?
    It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron.

    The long term plan seems to be to use electrolysis to reduce iron ore ( dissolved in some hot molten ionic liquid) to metallic iron, in much the same way as we get aluminium from alumina (Al2O3).

    That doesn't get rid of the coal. The coal is turned into coke and used as a component in making steel since that is the main difference between iron and steel, the carbon added, although other elements are also added.
    It certainly gets rid of most of it. Cast iron. as produced in a blast furnace, typically contains 2% to 4% carbon, and the Bessemer process converted it into steel (anything from 2.1% carbon to 0.05% carbon) by blowing air through the molten
    metal to convert some of that carbon into CO2.

    And it entirely gets rid of the need to dump a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere.

    The bulk of the work in making iron and steel out of Fe2O3 (which is the iron ore we start off with) is getting rid of the oxygen.

    Electrolysis of Fe2O3 ejects the oxygen at anode. Hydrogen reduction of Fe2O3 gets rid of of the oxygen as water.

    How does the electric arc furnace relate to reducing the production of CO2 in iron/steel making?

    As you could have read before you posted that - " It doesn't. Electric arc furnaces are used to melt metal, not to reduce ion oxides to metallic iron."

    Yes, I did, that's why I had to ask again as you seem to be going all around the issue but not addressing it.

    That's because you didn't know enough to understand the answer.

    You can burn fossil carbon to get metallic iron hot enough to melt, but that isn't where most of the coking coal used to make steel from iron ore get used up.

    How is the carbon added to make steel after electrolysis of ore to make carbon free iron?

    Any way the metallurgists like. If you get your soft iron hot enough in a reducing atmosphere and expose it to graphite, the carbon will diffuse through solid iron.

    Melt the soft iron - again in a reducing atmosphere - and sprinkle the graphite on the surface, then stir vigorously. Carbon diffuses even faster through liquid iron (which melts at 1538C). Graphite doesn't melt, and is less dense than liquid iron,
    so you would have to stir vigorously.

    What would be done in practice is anybody's guess. Nobody makes industrial quantities of iron by electrolysis at the moment, but metallurgist make all sorts of alloys in all sorts of ways and there's bound to be some approach that would just work.

    Ok, so this whole issue is a red herring. Thanks.

    Your red herring.

    The shorter term plan seems to be to electrolytic hydrogen to do the reduction in something that looks a lot more like a blast furnace. Twiggy Forrest - an Australian mining magnate who happens to have a Ph.D. in Marine Ecology (essentially a
    part time hobby project) has endorsed electrolysis as the long term solution, but he has been happy to talk up Australia's electrolytic hydrogen project (along with a bunch of other venture capitalists).

    https://www.upstreamonline.com/hydrogen/australia-leads-green-hydrogen-pack-with-69gw-project-pipeline/2-1-1072243

    The main charm of the project seems to be shipping off tanker-loads of liquid hydrogen to Japan and South Korea, but there are lots of other potential markets.

    Do you know what these tanker loads of hydrogen are used for? Is it the energy content or as feedstock for some industrial process?

    My guess is that it mostly going to replace liquified natural gas as an energy source, but the venture capital puffs aren't all that specific.

    So burning to make H2O in steam turbines? Or in fuel cells?

    More likely in gas turbines. Fuel cells would be more efficient, but pushing the original electric power through a long undersea cable and leaving out the hydrogen completely would be roughly three times more efficient. Singapore seems to be close
    enough to Australia to make this ostensibly feasible. Japan and South Korea are a bit further away.

    If it is three times more efficient, what is not "feasible" about it? Are you saying the cable would be enormous? What are you saying exactly?

    It would be very long. It's 3,353 km from Darwin to Singapore.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/04/worlds-longest-under-sea-electricity-cable-begins-operations.html

    is currently the world's longest undersea cable - about 720 km long.

    Some of our venture capitalist seem to be happy to contemplate a five-fold longer cable. Maybe they are thinking about using high-temperature superconductors, and lots of undersea Stirling cycle refrigerators.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From M Kfivethousand@21:1/5 to David Brown on Sat Mar 12 20:56:17 2022
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:21:43 AM UTC-6, David Brown wrote:
    On 23/02/2022 17:00, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 10:30:40 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
    wrote:
    On 23/02/22 14:30, Rick C wrote:
    On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:56:35 AM UTC-5, Tom Gardner
    wrote:
    On 23/02/22 08:11, Jeff Layman wrote:
    On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
    Maybe someone here will be interested.
    <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9>

    Well, it's been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is
    nearer to reality:
    <https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html> >>>>> But even there note "The latest results use about three times
    the amount of energy that is produced."

    I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of
    "endless" energy?

    Unsurprisingly yes.
    https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    Amusingly John Larkin adopts the economist's position, and
    thinks the physicist's position is wrong.

    The physicist is not correct. Notice that the opening posit is
    "economic growth cannot continue indefinitely", and gets
    immediately replaced by the "energy scale expanding into the
    future". These are not the same things at all.

    I knew an economist who actually posited the physicist's
    position. Seems that was a common belief among economists in the
    80s and 90s. What it fails to take into account is the ability to
    do more with less. Computers are a perfect example. They have
    allowed us to replace relatively inefficient humans with
    machines, boosting productivity in ways we could only imagine
    before. We find new technology that allows better products using
    less material and energy. We discover new means of medical
    diagnosis and treatment extending and improving life.

    None of this automatically implies greater energy consumption.
    The entire argument is specious.
    There's validity to that objection, but historically the energy -
    wealth relationship has tracked reasonably well.

    The problem with exponential growth is that even if you posit that
    we become 16* more energy efficient by some "magic" (Arthur C.
    Clarke!) means, that only delays the conclusion by 4 doubling
    generations. And that's not enough to invalidate the basic
    observations.

    Why can't you see the very obvious fallacy in that argument? The
    energy *estimate* grew exponentially for a few centuries not because
    we used more energy per individual, but because the human population
    grew exponentially. In the last couple of hundred years technology
    has extended life span, improved farm productivity and otherwise
    enabled faster population growth... until more recently where the
    more affluent countries have reduced their population growth.

    At the same time, the per capita energy use has increased... until
    the last 50 years when it also has leveled off in the more affluent
    parts of the globe.

    So the combination of leveling off of population and the leveling off
    of per capita energy use means we will continue to improve the
    quality of life as well as economic growth into the foreseeable
    future.

    I wonder if you read the article in detail?

    Ok, I guess no one read It. :)
    Long day....

    mk5000

    But at the same time a contrary undertow reels us back into byways of history, sampling the chipped-paint signposts of lost Americas, their bygone Mr. Salteenas and others of his ilk. Ashbery is always in the contemporary world but not quite of it,
    because he has other worlds to inhabit, or at least to conjure or salvage: the present is just one of the many sectors that make up the historical multiverse of his poems.==James Gibbons reviews John Ashbery's new book, Breezeway

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)