• The Ukraine War Will Go On Forever

    From Mike Monett@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 05:21:20 2022
    The Ukraine war is a spiritual war. Spiritual wars are the most dangerous.
    It will go on forever.

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

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

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

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

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

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


    --
    MRM

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Allison@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Mon Apr 18 23:45:29 2022
    Mike Monett writes BULLSHIT

    ===============================
    The Ukraine war is a spiritual war.

    ** No such animal.

    It will go on forever.

    ** Resistance may continue for long time, if Russia takes over,

    The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back.

    ** Absolute garbage.


    These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.

    ** Yeah - cos you made it up.

    Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions

    ** More absolute garbage.

    Sanctions will ruin the Russian economy.
    Putin will be overthrown.


    ...... Phil

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ed Lee@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Tue Apr 19 01:29:16 2022
    On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 10:21:27 PM UTC-7, Mike Monett wrote:
    The Ukraine war is a spiritual war. Spiritual wars are the most dangerous.
    It will go on forever.

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

    True believers don't believe in atrocity in the name of religion. Pootin is an opportunist in religion.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 07:20:32 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

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

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

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

    Patriarch Kirill, A Former KGB Spy and Spiritual Guru is the driving force >behind Putinís Ukraine War:

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.



    --

    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 Tue Apr 19 07:49:55 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 12:20:44 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:

    <snip>

    This is a great fork in history. Russia could crush Ukraine,

    It hasn't crushed it yet, and seems to be settling for chewing off another small bit.

    hunker down, absorb more small countries,

    It's not doing too well with the Ukraine. Trying to absorb even one more might be a bit over-ambitious.

    isolate itself from the rest of civilization,

    That's essentially what the invasion of the Ukraine has already done.

    brain drain all its talent and morality,

    It's talent has been selling itself on the world market for a couple of centuries now. "Morality" doesn't brain drain otherwise the US would have bought itself some moral wisdom by now.

    and stay poor and barbaric for another 50 years.

    It is relatively poor, by first world standards, mainly because it is remarkably badly run. It certainly isn't barbaric - which originally meant no more than not speaking Greek. It is a totalitarian state at the moment, which means that the psychopaths
    who get to the top of heap (as they do in totalitarian societies) are free to behave remarkably badly, but they are more or less civilised crooks.

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.

    Disappearing Putin might be one small step in the process, but the US hasn't become European yet, and doesn't seem to realise that it it needs to.

    Russia is even further behind the game than the US is. Not that they don't know where they need to get to - which the US doesn't seem to - but the problem of getting rid of all the greedy crooks who stand in the way is even worse there than it is in the
    US.

    --
    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 Tue Apr 19 14:54:10 2022
    On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:20:32 -0700) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <71ht5h1pk8t8eve6cj4jmir45n50ebr6pg@4ax.com>:

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

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

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

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

    Patriarch Kirill, A Former KGB Spy and Spiritual Guru is the driving force >>behind Putinís Ukraine War:

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Tue Apr 19 08:05:32 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 10:56:29 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
    On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:20:32 -0700) it happened jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
    <71ht5h1pk8t8eve6c...@4ax.com>:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> >wrote:

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

    The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
    doesn't matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed. >>
    These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.
    They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
    continue fighting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Yeah, I'm sure that's what will happen.

    From the mouth of Jan...

    --

    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 Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Apr 19 18:35:54 2022
    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.




    They have too many nukes for the world to allow them to stay a
    North Korea 2.0 for such a long time (they already are that, only
    the fat Kim unlike Putin has the brains not to put his country
    at war with the rest of the world).
    This has to be resolved one way or another, whatever the cost.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Apr 19 15:39:21 2022
    On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Apr 2022 08:27:30 -0700) it happened jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in <2ukt5hh08b3m586fk79urss07dcu7ksgvq@4ax.com>:

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

    A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.

    Not so bad here, snails, and now mosquitos in swarms in the evening
    And cats

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Tue Apr 19 08:27:30 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:54:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

    Patriarch Kirill, A Former KGB Spy and Spiritual Guru is the driving force >>>behind Putinís Ukraine War:

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.

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

    That would aguably be historic too.


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

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

    A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.




    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 09:41:16 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
    wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

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

    The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
    doesn't matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed. >>>
    These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different. >>> They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
    continue fighting.

    Patriarch Kirill, A Former KGB Spy and Spiritual Guru is the driving force >>> behind Putinís Ukraine War:

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.




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

    The problem is "allow".

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

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

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

    Europeans need to start fracking.


    --

    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 Jeff Liebermann@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 10:47:49 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "When somebody says itís not about the money, itís about the money."
    H. L. Mencken


    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
    PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue Apr 19 20:26:05 2022
    On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
    wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

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

    The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
    doesn't matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed. >>>>
    These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.
    They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
    continue fighting.

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

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.




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

    The problem is "allow".

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

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


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

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

    Europeans need to start fracking.


    Europeans need to do whatever it takes to stop buying anything
    from Russia. Faster - even of this means blackouts and painful
    economical loss. I am thinking of buying a generator here... just 2-3
    kW, life without electricity for me would be 100% pointless, never
    mind the difficult side of it. May be I have to get something
    I can adapt to a steam engine which I can run on wood I can gather,
    don't know how to get a plutonium cell to boil the water :).

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 10:39:25 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:26:05 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
    wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
    wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> >>>> wrote:

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

    The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
    doesn't matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed. >>>>>
    These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.
    They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
    continue fighting.

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

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.




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

    The problem is "allow".

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

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


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

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

    Europeans need to start fracking.


    Europeans need to do whatever it takes to stop buying anything
    from Russia. Faster - even of this means blackouts and painful
    economical loss. I am thinking of buying a generator here... just 2-3
    kW, life without electricity for me would be 100% pointless, never
    mind the difficult side of it. May be I have to get something
    I can adapt to a steam engine which I can run on wood I can gather,
    don't know how to get a plutonium cell to boil the water :).

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

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

    --

    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 Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue Apr 19 21:29:26 2022
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:26:05 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
    wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com>
    wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> >>>>> wrote:

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

    The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
    doesn't matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed. >>>>>>
    These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.
    They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
    continue fighting.

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

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.




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

    The problem is "allow".

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

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


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

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

    Europeans need to start fracking.


    Europeans need to do whatever it takes to stop buying anything
    from Russia. Faster - even of this means blackouts and painful
    economical loss. I am thinking of buying a generator here... just 2-3
    kW, life without electricity for me would be 100% pointless, never
    mind the difficult side of it. May be I have to get something
    I can adapt to a steam engine which I can run on wood I can gather,
    don't know how to get a plutonium cell to boil the water :).

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

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

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


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Dimiter Popoff on Tue Apr 19 12:04:02 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:29:33 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:26:05 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> >>> wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> >>>>> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.




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

    The problem is "allow".

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

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


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

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

    Europeans need to start fracking.


    Europeans need to do whatever it takes to stop buying anything
    from Russia. Faster - even of this means blackouts and painful
    economical loss. I am thinking of buying a generator here... just 2-3
    kW, life without electricity for me would be 100% pointless, never
    mind the difficult side of it. May be I have to get something
    I can adapt to a steam engine which I can run on wood I can gather,
    don't know how to get a plutonium cell to boil the water :).

    Germany needs to revive its coal and nuke power plants, or freeze and de-industrialize.
    It does. And they need to build some more nuclear plants so coal can be phased out.
    There's still lots of fuel under the North Sea. More exploring seems
    to find more stuff.

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

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

    The big problem with nuclear energy is the massive up front costs that make it very hard to tell if you will ever turn a profit. All new projects seem to be built under contracts that require a utility to pay for the electricity rather than letting the
    market decide. This is going to cause big problems for anyone who builds much nuclear power these days. Well, unless you are the Chinese who cut corners and don't operate with the same level of concern for safety.

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/edf-says-partners-must-decide-taishan-reactor-shutdown-2021-07-22/

    https://xkcd.com/2278/

    Where is Dave Barry when you need him? Or Al Capp for that matter?

    --

    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 wmartin@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Apr 19 12:14:34 2022
    On 4/19/22 08:27, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:54:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
    <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

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

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

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

    The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
    doesn't matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed. >>>>
    These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.
    They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
    continue fighting.

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

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.

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

    That would aguably be historic too.


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

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

    A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.




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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From wmartin@21:1/5 to Jeff Liebermann on Tue Apr 19 12:20:42 2022
    On 4/19/22 10:47, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lasse Langwadt Christensen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 12:16:41 2022
    tirsdag den 19. april 2022 kl. 21.04.07 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:29:33 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:26:05 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> >>> wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.




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

    The problem is "allow".

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

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


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

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

    Europeans need to start fracking.


    Europeans need to do whatever it takes to stop buying anything
    from Russia. Faster - even of this means blackouts and painful
    economical loss. I am thinking of buying a generator here... just 2-3 >> kW, life without electricity for me would be 100% pointless, never
    mind the difficult side of it. May be I have to get something
    I can adapt to a steam engine which I can run on wood I can gather,
    don't know how to get a plutonium cell to boil the water :).

    Germany needs to revive its coal and nuke power plants, or freeze and de-industrialize.
    It does. And they need to build some more nuclear plants so coal can be phased out.
    There's still lots of fuel under the North Sea. More exploring seems
    to find more stuff.

    Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
    the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
    smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
    Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
    has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
    weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
    masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
    engine I hope to build in my backyard won't come for free :D.
    Don't turn to the French for nuclear. They can't seem to build a nuke for less than $20 billion these days and it will be a decade late in commissioning. Their nuclear projects are mostly disasters.


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Lasse Langwadt Christensen on Tue Apr 19 21:55:10 2022
    On 2022-04-19 21:16, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    tirsdag den 19. april 2022 kl. 21.04.07 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    [...]

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


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


    The reason it's so hard to make new ones these days is the crippling
    regulatory environment. My work also involves radioactive stuff.
    We're so bogged down it's hard to get anything done at all.

    Of course, it's all for our own and the public's safety. You can't
    criticize that or you'll be deemed irresponsible.

    It's almost funny. I *know* we all get a daily dose of ~10uSv, just
    from the ordinary environment, but the extra few hundred nSv I
    occasionally get from working on slightly radioactive stuff seems
    to justify lots of extra rules, lots of paperwork, regular
    inspections, special labs and protective gear. Granted, those are
    sometimes necessary, but sheesh, a bit of common sense would be
    welcome. A few uSv extra on occasion aren't going to make a
    difference!

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Tue Apr 19 12:47:10 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:16:45 PM UTC-4, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    tirsdag den 19. april 2022 kl. 21.04.07 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:29:33 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:26:05 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
    wrote:

    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.




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

    The problem is "allow".

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

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


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

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

    Europeans need to start fracking.


    Europeans need to do whatever it takes to stop buying anything
    from Russia. Faster - even of this means blackouts and painful
    economical loss. I am thinking of buying a generator here... just 2-3 >> kW, life without electricity for me would be 100% pointless, never
    mind the difficult side of it. May be I have to get something
    I can adapt to a steam engine which I can run on wood I can gather, >> don't know how to get a plutonium cell to boil the water :).

    Germany needs to revive its coal and nuke power plants, or freeze and de-industrialize.
    It does. And they need to build some more nuclear plants so coal can be phased out.
    There's still lots of fuel under the North Sea. More exploring seems to find more stuff.

    Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
    the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
    smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
    Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
    has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
    engine I hope to build in my backyard won't come for free :D.
    Don't turn to the French for nuclear. They can't seem to build a nuke for less than $20 billion these days and it will be a decade late in commissioning. Their nuclear projects are mostly disasters.

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

    Yes, reactors that were mostly built 40 or 50 years ago. Why aren't they building the same design? Why can't they repeat their earlier success? Inquiring minds want to know!

    --

    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 Doe@21:1/5 to Mike Monett on Tue Apr 19 20:02:50 2022
    XPost: free.spam

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

    That war could have easily been prevented if not for the overinflated egos
    in Ukraine. Pride comes before the fall.

    Ukraine needs to HUMBLE itself, declare itself NEUTRAL, and stop bombing Russia-sympathetic people in Ukraine.

    As far as support from Americans goes... It's all about the New World
    Order, neocons and liberals' newfound love (apparently centering on hatred
    for Trump), and the bizarre claim that Ukraine is The Holy Land.

    Ukraine worked hard to elect Hillary Clinton, against Trump, in 2016. Like
    the Ukrainian parliament member said right there in a YouTube video...

    "We fight for this New World Order"

    https://youtu.be/lD4OP-cPgQo?t=106

    It's all about imperialism and warmongering. We just got out of
    Afghanistan 7 months ago and the warmongers are beating the war drums
    again.

    World War III is where we are heading. The destruction of marriage is
    leading to the fall of civilization. At this point in human history, that
    means dire consequence. But, apparently this, or what is to come in the not-too-distant future, was predicted. I think we will end up with a one
    world government before everything falls apart. When there is nowhere to
    run, that is when they will put the real squeeze on ordinary people.


    --
    Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
    From: Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Subject: The Ukraine War Will Go On Forever
    Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC)
    Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
    Lines: 23
    Message-ID: <XnsAE7EDC9EA064idtokenpost@144.76.35.252>
    Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC)
    Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b6c6095c16fb712d574fd2c58c173ea0"; logging-data="24427"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/w32V7fSg0wOHzOX8L5sL6KB2enN2pbwFwb1SSqH0g8Q=="
    User-Agent: Xnews/2009.05.01
    Cancel-Lock: sha1:+I1XcIY7kHUZKRW2EsGPdWJWZCo=
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:666802

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    --
    MRM



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 20:06:34 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:02:50 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t3n4ha$kst$3@dont-email.me>.

    Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
    USENET (**) has been 57.3% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
    least 1067 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
    486 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    sWYa/ReN4we/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Edward Hernandez on Tue Apr 19 20:26:06 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Eddie wants so badly to nym-shift. That's a no-no here, Eddie!

    Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

    See also...
    John Doe <always.look@message.header> (astraweb)
    Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

    Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

    Spanked Eddie...

    --
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.ams4.POSTED!
    not-for-mail
    From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: The Ukraine War Will Go On Forever
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
    References: <XnsAE7EDC9EA064idtokenpost@144.76.35.252> <t3n4ha$kst$3@dont-email.me>
    Lines: 37
    Message-ID: <eDE7K.1151815$dS2.820905@usenetxs.com>
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:06:34 UTC
    Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:06:34 GMT
    X-Received-Bytes: 1967
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:666880 free.spam:17980

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:02:50 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t3n4ha$kst$3@dont-email.me>.

    Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to USENET (**) has been 57.3% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
    least 1067 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
    486 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    sWYa/ReN4we/




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Tue Apr 19 13:25:53 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:55:18 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-04-19 21:16, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    tirsdag den 19. april 2022 kl. 21.04.07 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    [...]
    Don't turn to the French for nuclear. They can't seem to build a
    nuke for less than $20 billion these days and it will be a decade
    late in commissioning. Their nuclear projects are mostly
    disasters.


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

    The reason it's so hard to make new ones these days is the crippling regulatory environment.

    This is the BS that so many advocate, without any basis.


    My work also involves radioactive stuff.
    We're so bogged down it's hard to get anything done at all.

    Of course, it's all for our own and the public's safety. You can't
    criticize that or you'll be deemed irresponsible.

    It's almost funny. I *know* we all get a daily dose of ~10uSv, just
    from the ordinary environment, but the extra few hundred nSv I
    occasionally get from working on slightly radioactive stuff seems
    to justify lots of extra rules, lots of paperwork, regular
    inspections, special labs and protective gear. Granted, those are
    sometimes necessary, but sheesh, a bit of common sense would be
    welcome. A few uSv extra on occasion aren't going to make a
    difference!

    Sure, but the regulations are to prevent a much larger dose. They may be a bit overboard, but you talk like you literally can't get your work done. Then you say it is "sometimes" necessary! "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

    --

    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 Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue Apr 19 23:03:37 2022
    On 2022-04-19 22:25, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:55:18 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-04-19 21:16, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    tirsdag den 19. april 2022 kl. 21.04.07 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    [...]
    Don't turn to the French for nuclear. They can't seem to build a
    nuke for less than $20 billion these days and it will be a decade
    late in commissioning. Their nuclear projects are mostly
    disasters.


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

    The reason it's so hard to make new ones these days is the crippling
    regulatory environment.

    This is the BS that so many advocate, without any basis.


    My work also involves radioactive stuff.
    We're so bogged down it's hard to get anything done at all.

    Of course, it's all for our own and the public's safety. You can't
    criticize that or you'll be deemed irresponsible.

    It's almost funny. I *know* we all get a daily dose of ~10uSv, just
    from the ordinary environment, but the extra few hundred nSv I
    occasionally get from working on slightly radioactive stuff seems
    to justify lots of extra rules, lots of paperwork, regular
    inspections, special labs and protective gear. Granted, those are
    sometimes necessary, but sheesh, a bit of common sense would be
    welcome. A few uSv extra on occasion aren't going to make a
    difference!

    Sure, but the regulations are to prevent a much larger dose. They may be a bit overboard, but you talk like you literally can't get your work done. Then you say it is "sometimes" necessary! "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".


    Well, what do you know? I'm not going to argue with you.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 20:45:12 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
    incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:26:06 -0000
    (UTC) in message-id <t3n5su$kst$4@dont-email.me>.

    Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
    USENET (**) has been 57.3% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
    least 1070 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
    488 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

    xCDXbygQlIXy

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 23:22:04 2022
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

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


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




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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 19 14:43:42 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 1:02:57 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    Actually it's to do with AGGRESSIVE NATO expansion to Russia's border countries, since the end of the Cold War when Russia gave up those countries.

    Lie #1: it's not about NATO, which is a defense agreement that, if anything, is getting stronger because of this conflict. The 'solution' wasn't aimed at NATO.
    .
    Lie #2: Russia never 'gave up' any countries, they just left the USSR agreeably.
    It's definitely about countries other than Russia, which is
    a situation limiting Putin's power to... one country. Where he arguably has supporters.

    Lie #3: the Cold War is not the issue, but rather a hot war, and looking backward
    through history for Cold War and Nazis is just a propoganda tactic, akin to blaming
    the ills of the world on devils.

    That war could have easily been prevented if not for the overinflated egos
    in Ukraine. Pride comes before the fall.

    Dimwit alert! Putin claimed up to the day of invasion that he was NOT going to war. If you believe the 'special military operation' rhetoric is meaningful,
    he still claims that. No 'prevented' opportunity was clear, but the assault force
    was REAL clear. Ukraine has ground forces and egos, but Putin's problem there isn't the egos.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Liebermann@21:1/5 to wmartin on Tue Apr 19 14:50:26 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:20:42 -0700, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    "When somebody says itís not about the money, itís about the money."
    H. L. Mencken

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

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

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

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

    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
    PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Dimiter_Popoff@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 01:06:47 2022
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

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


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




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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 22:09:51 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:09:18 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t3nbue$g6f$2@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 57.4% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1079 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
    494 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    1SeW8Bu4QB23

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to whit3rd@gmail.com on Tue Apr 19 22:09:18 2022
    XPost: free.spam

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

    "Kennan, Kissinger warned of the ills of NATOís expanding eastward"

    "The legendary foreign policy guru George F. Kennan argued in 1948 against
    any Western attempt to detach Ukraine from Russia and later called the
    North Atlantic Treaty Organizationís eastward expansion a major strategic blunder. Kennan was not a lone voice on this point. More recently, during
    the first Russia-Ukraine war in 2014, former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned, ďThe West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can
    never be just a foreign country.Ē Kissinger was blunt: ďUkraine should not
    join NATO. . . . Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable
    to that of Finland,Ē carefully avoiding institutional hostility toward
    Russia."

    But don't take VIP diplomats' words for it,
    this blowhard neocon warmonger knows better...


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

    X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:2886:b0:699:bab7:ae78 with SMTP id j6-20020a05620a288600b00699bab7ae78mr10766385qkp.618.1650404622376; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
    X-Received: by 2002:a25:6f07:0:b0:641:3538:7584 with SMTP id k7-20020a256f07000000b0064135387584mr17685795ybc.566.1650404622245; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
    In-Reply-To: <t3n4ha$kst$3@dont-email.me>
    Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.221.140.126; posting-account=vKQm_QoAAADOaDCYsqOFDAW8NJ8sFHoE
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.221.140.126
    References: <XnsAE7EDC9EA064idtokenpost@144.76.35.252> <t3n4ha$kst$3@dont-email.me>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Message-ID: <7b15c585-74ae-49a7-a977-cd661e006280n@googlegroups.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: The Ukraine War Will Go On Forever
    From: whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com>
    Injection-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:43:42 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    Lines: 22
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:666896

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

    Lie #1: it's not about NATO, which is a defense agreement that, if anything, is getting stronger because of this conflict. The 'solution' wasn't aimed at NATO.
    .
    Lie #2: Russia never 'gave up' any countries, they just left the USSR agreeably.
    It's definitely about countries other than Russia, which is
    a situation limiting Putin's power to... one country. Where he arguably has supporters.

    Lie #3: the Cold War is not the issue, but rather a hot war, and looking backward
    through history for Cold War and Nazis is just a propoganda tactic, akin to blaming
    the ills of the world on devils.

    That war could have easily been prevented if not for the overinflated egos >> in Ukraine. Pride comes before the fall.

    Dimwit alert! Putin claimed up to the day of invasion that he was NOT going to war. If you believe the 'special military operation' rhetoric is meaningful,
    he still claims that. No 'prevented' opportunity was clear, but the assault force
    was REAL clear. Ukraine has ground forces and egos, but Putin's problem there
    isn't the egos.



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 22:10:59 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:10:52 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t3nc1c$g6f$3@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
    USENET (**) has been 57.3% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
    least 1083 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
    496 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    wbgp/Pm++lLr

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 19 22:10:52 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Eddie wants so badly to nym-shift. That's a no-no here, Eddie!

    Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

    See also...
    John Doe <always.look@message.header> (astraweb)
    Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

    Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

    Spanked Eddie...

    --
    John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer03.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx12.ams4.POSTED!
    not-for-mail
    From: John Doe <always.look@message.header>
    Subject: Re: OT: The Ukraine War Will Go On Forever
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
    References: <XnsAE7EDC9EA064idtokenpost@144.76.35.252> <t3n4ha$kst$3@dont-email.me> <7b15c585-74ae-49a7-a977-cd661e006280n@googlegroups.com> <t3nbue$g6f$2@dont-email.me>
    Lines: 40
    Message-ID: <PqG7K.1113253$zX2.78017@usenetxs.com>
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:09:51 UTC
    Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:09:51 GMT
    X-Received-Bytes: 2148
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:666902 free.spam:17988

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:09:18 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t3nbue$g6f$2@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 57.4% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1079 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
    494 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    1SeW8Bu4QB23




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 22:38:53 2022
    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-says-no-red-line-indias-oil-imports-russia-2022-03-31/

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

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

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

    It's the hard West, neocons and liberals, against the rest of the world, fighting for their beloved Ukraine. Before Russia invaded, most Americans
    had no idea what Ukraine was, except being "10% for the big guy" and maybe
    an old Beatles' song.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Liebermann@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Tue Apr 19 15:40:41 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:55:10 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    It's almost funny. I *know* we all get a daily dose of ~10uSv, just
    from the ordinary environment, but the extra few hundred nSv I
    occasionally get from working on slightly radioactive stuff seems
    to justify lots of extra rules, lots of paperwork, regular
    inspections, special labs and protective gear. Granted, those are
    sometimes necessary, but sheesh, a bit of common sense would be
    welcome. A few uSv extra on occasion aren't going to make a
    difference!

    This might help:

    Radiation Dose Chart
    <https://xkcd.com/radiation/

    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
    PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 00:44:53 2022
    On 20/04/2022 00:06, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

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


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




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

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

    It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to overregulations,
    like Jeroen suggested. Then the word "nuclear" still spells suicide
    for many if not all politicians - which is the biggest problem, after
    decades of training the public to perceive the word like this now
    is pay time.

    Certainly fear of radiation is regularly overdone, and that leads to over-regulation and cowardice from the people making decisions. You do
    have to be careful with nuclear power, but you don't have to be silly
    about it. At the time of Fukushima, there was talk of evacuating Tokyo
    - the levels they were concerned about were lower than the background
    radiation where I live.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Cursitor Doom@21:1/5 to always.look@message.header on Tue Apr 19 23:46:51 2022
    XPost: free.spam

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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Tue Apr 19 15:54:42 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 5:03:47 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-04-19 22:25, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:55:18 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-04-19 21:16, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    tirsdag den 19. april 2022 kl. 21.04.07 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    [...]
    Don't turn to the French for nuclear. They can't seem to build a
    nuke for less than $20 billion these days and it will be a decade
    late in commissioning. Their nuclear projects are mostly
    disasters.


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

    The reason it's so hard to make new ones these days is the crippling
    regulatory environment.

    This is the BS that so many advocate, without any basis.


    My work also involves radioactive stuff.
    We're so bogged down it's hard to get anything done at all.

    Of course, it's all for our own and the public's safety. You can't
    criticize that or you'll be deemed irresponsible.

    It's almost funny. I *know* we all get a daily dose of ~10uSv, just
    from the ordinary environment, but the extra few hundred nSv I
    occasionally get from working on slightly radioactive stuff seems
    to justify lots of extra rules, lots of paperwork, regular
    inspections, special labs and protective gear. Granted, those are
    sometimes necessary, but sheesh, a bit of common sense would be
    welcome. A few uSv extra on occasion aren't going to make a
    difference!

    Sure, but the regulations are to prevent a much larger dose. They may be a bit overboard, but you talk like you literally can't get your work done. Then you say it is "sometimes" necessary! "The lady doth protest too much, methinks".

    Well, what do you know? I'm not going to argue with you.

    That's good. You are already arguing with yourself.

    --

    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 Ricky@21:1/5 to David Brown on Tue Apr 19 15:56:03 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 5:22:17 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

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


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



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

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

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

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Dimiter Popoff on Tue Apr 19 15:59:32 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:06:56 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

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


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




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

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

    So, which regulations need to be eliminated?

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Apr 19 19:53:43 2022
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

    A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.

    Is it legal to own an air rifle?

    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Tue Apr 19 23:45:32 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Cursitor Doom wrote:

    John Doe wrote:

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

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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 20:02:18 2022
    Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

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

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

    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From wmartin@21:1/5 to Jeff Liebermann on Tue Apr 19 16:53:38 2022
    On 4/19/22 14:50, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:20:42 -0700, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 19 17:15:21 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 3:09:26 PM UTC-7, John Doe wrote:
    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/03/02/opinion/battle-is-being-waged-future-world/

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Tue Apr 19 18:38:20 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    Dimiter_Popoff wrote:

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

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

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to David Brown on Tue Apr 19 18:34:28 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:45:01 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 00:06, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

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

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

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


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




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

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

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

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

    --

    Rick C.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue Apr 19 20:13:48 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 2:41:28 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com>
    wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com>
    wrote:

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

    The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
    doesn't matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed. >>>
    These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.
    They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
    continue fighting.

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

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.




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

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

    Europeans need to start fracking.

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to bitrex on Tue Apr 19 22:46:12 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    On 4/19/2022 10:41 PM, bitrex wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 6:46 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:02:50 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
    <always.look@message.header> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Tue Apr 19 22:41:41 2022
    XPost: free.spam

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Dimiter Popoff on Tue Apr 19 20:26:40 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:26:14 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:

    <snip>

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

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

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

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

    Why?

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

    Europeans need to start fracking.

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

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

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

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

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

    I don't know how to get a plutonium cell to boil the water :).

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to bitrex on Wed Apr 20 03:25:06 2022
    bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

    Cursitor Doom wrote:
    John Doe wrote:

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

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

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

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

    That rhetoric has nothing to do with reality.

    It's easy to research...

    allintext:Ukraine "neo-Nazis" (limited to before 2020)

    Jillions of results.

    Ukraine is and always was a deeply divided country: Western Ukraine is traditionally nazistic (they were on Hitler's side during World War II,
    and they continue to be nazis) people speak their own dialect of Ukrainian language and hate everyone else; Transcarpathia (Ruthenia) is anti-West Ukrainian and moderately pro-Russian but most of all Ruthenians (speak
    their language as well as Russian and Ukrainian) want to be reunited with Hungary; Central Ukraine is the true Ukraine. Central Ukraine is very laid back, moderately anti-West Ukrainian, moderately pro-Russian, speak
    Ukrainian and Russian (in towns). Southern and Eastern Ukraine are very anti-West Ukrainian, very pro-Russian, speak predominantly Russian
    language. Crimea always considered itself Russian; hate West Ukrainians.

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

    The key word being "almost".

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

    In other words, sending weapons to Ukraine is better than something else.

    Apparently Trump Derangement Syndrome has much to do with Ukraine being
    "The New Holy Land". Ukraine worked hard against Trump in 2016. Ukraine is
    (or was) pushing for the New World Order, the imperialist warmonger ideal.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue Apr 19 20:53:35 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:39:37 AM UTC+10, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:26:05 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:

    <snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to lang...@fonz.dk on Tue Apr 19 21:03:47 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:45 AM UTC+10, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
    tirsdag den 19. april 2022 kl. 21.04.07 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 2:29:33 PM UTC-4, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:26:05 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 19:41, John Larkin wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 18:35:54 +0300, Dimiter_Popoff <d...@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 17:20, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Ricky on Tue Apr 19 22:01:28 2022
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

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

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

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 19 21:46:07 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:02:57 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Mike Monett <spa...@not.com> wrote:

    <snip what Mike Monett wrote was pretty silly, if not at the John Doe absurd level>

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

    Russia didn't "give up" those countries. The cold war ended when the USSR fell apart, and "those countries stopped being members of a union - or federation - that also included Russia.

    That war could have easily been prevented if not for the overinflated egos in Ukraine. Pride comes before the fall.

    Putin's pride in being the leader of Russia which used to the biggest country within the USSR, seems to be the real problem. With any luck his unrealistic ambition will take him down.

    Ukraine needs to HUMBLE itself, declare itself NEUTRAL, and stop bombing Russia-sympathetic people in Ukraine.

    I'm sure that Putin likes to think that. The "Russian-sympathetic" people in the Ukraine that the Ukraine has been bombing are members of the Russian military that are posing as separatists in the Russian speaking provinces of the Ukraine. This has been
    going on for quite a while.

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

    The international flight was shot down over the Donbas region on the 17th July 2014, by a Russian antiaircraft missile fired by the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of the Russian Federation, who returned to Russia immediately afterwards. The Russians
    have been a bit more careful ever since, but no less aggressive.

    Putin's enthusiasm for "humbling the Ukraine" into nonexistence is what you should be worrying about, but since you seem to share Trump's unwillingness to call out Putin as the criminal lunatic he clearly is, you aren't going to do it. Putin has
    presumably got some dirt on Trump - for money laundering or fraud or the like - so Trump's behavior is explicable, if disgraceful. Yours is merely as stupid as usual.

    <snipped the usual twaddle - John Doe does like recycling old nonsense>

    World War III is where we are heading. The destruction of marriage is leading to the fall of civilization.

    Except that marraige hasn't been "destroyed". People do tend to live together and have kids before they bother formalising their union - which is to say they concentrate on knowing that they've got a real marriage before they formalise it, which makes
    those marriages which are formalised rather more robust than the marry in haste, repent at leisure unions that John Doe is apparently mourning.

    This isn't going to destroy civilisation - quite the reverse.

    At this point in human history, that means dire consequence.

    For John Doe. Society isn't going to be quite as mean and nasty as he'd like.

    But, apparently this, or what is to come in the not-too-distant future, was predicted. I think we will end up with a one world government before everything falls apart.

    John Doe - like Cursitor Doom - is addicted to ridiculous conspiracy theories, the more implausible they are, the better he likes them.

    When there is nowhere to run, that is when they will put the real squeeze on ordinary people.

    Ordinary people have never been able to run away. You need to have lots of money, or easily saleable skills, before that becomes an option.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to wmartin on Tue Apr 19 21:20:09 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:14:34 -0700, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:

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

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

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

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

    The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
    doesn't matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed. >>>>>
    These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.
    They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
    continue fighting.

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

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

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

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

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

    Or they could disappear Putin and become european.

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

    That would aguably be historic too.


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

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

    A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.




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

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

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

    Coyote Warning...

    and

    Missing Cat...




    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Dimiter Popoff on Tue Apr 19 22:08:22 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Cursitor Doom on Tue Apr 19 22:28:06 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:46:59 AM UTC+10, Cursitor Doom wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:02:50 -0000 (UTC), John Doe
    <alway...@message.header> wrote:

    Actually it's to do with AGGRESSIVE NATO expansion to Russia's border >countries, since the end of the Cold War when Russia gave up those countries.
    That's the core issue that never seems to get a mention on CNN or any
    other Western news channel for that matter.
    One might have thought an operation to purge neo-Nazis from the
    extreme East of Ukraine would have enjoyed popular support from the Left-of-Center crowd here, but for some inexplicable reason, all they
    do is complain about it!

    They weren't neo-Nazi's, but rather Ukrainian nationalists. The last of the group that fought with the germans against the Russians finally got mopped up in1956.

    Putin does like to recycle WW2 propaganda, but it's nonsense, if the kind of nonsense to which Cursitor Doom is addicted.

    The Ukraine does have a problem with Russian separatists in largely Russian-speaking regions of the Ukraine, but a lot of them seem to be members of the Russian army posing as separatists.

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

    is perhaps the most flagrant example of this kind of incursion.

    "The airliner was downed by a Buk surface-to-air missile launched from pro-Russian separatist-controlled territory in Ukraine". The missile had been fired by "the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of the Russian Federation and had been transported from
    Russia on the day of the crash, fired from a field in a rebel-controlled area and the launch system returned to Russia afterwards".

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 19 22:31:15 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:45:39 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Cursitor Doom wrote:
    John Doe wrote:

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

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

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 19 22:17:19 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:38:59 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-says-no-red-line-indias-oil-imports-russia-2022-03-31/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Liebermann@21:1/5 to bill.sloman@ieee.org on Tue Apr 19 23:00:30 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

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

    "Desertec"
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec>
    "The project failed twice due to the problem of transportation and cost-inefficiency. The initiative was revived in 2020 with a focus on
    green hydrogen, catering to both domestic demand and exports to
    foreign markets."

    "The Problem with Solar Energy in Africa" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o> (18:19)
    1. Lack of sufficient interties between North Africa and Europe.
    2. Photoelectric is currently cheaper than concentrated solar
    power[1].
    3. Photovoltaic can be built locally, which is easier and cheaper
    than importing electricity from remote solar farms.
    4. Water, exploitation and politics.

    [1] Note that the relative costs are constantly changing. This
    article paints a different picture of the comparative costs:
    "The cost of Concentrated Solar Power fell by 47% between 2010 and
    2019" <https://www.evwind.es/2020/07/29/the-cost-of-concentrated-solar-power-fell-by-47-between-2010-and-2019/76120>

    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
    PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 19 22:57:46 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 1:25:22 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    bitrex <us...@example.net> wrote:

    Cursitor Doom wrote:
    John Doe wrote:

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

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

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

    Might as well talk about purging dingle berries from every stray cat's
    ass in Cambridge MA it's a nonsensical pretext.
    That rhetoric has nothing to do with reality.

    It's easy to research...

    allintext:Ukraine "neo-Nazis" (limited to before 2020)

    Jillions of results.

    All published by people silly enough to want to pander to the likes of John Doe

    Ukraine is and always was a deeply divided country: Western Ukraine is traditionally nazistic (they were on Hitler's side during World War II, and they continue to be nazis)

    They are anti-Russian, rather than pro-German. Not nazi. John Doe never seems to have noticed that Stalin's famine killed several million in the Ukraine in 1932-33.

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

    They kept on fighting against the Russians until 1956. which didn't do the German nazis any good.

    Western Ukrainian people speak their own dialect of Ukrainian language and hate everyone else;

    Like John Doe?

    Transcarpathia (Ruthenia) is anti-West Ukrainian and moderately pro-Russian but most of all Ruthenians (speak
    their language as well as Russian and Ukrainian) want to be reunited with Hungary; Central Ukraine is the true Ukraine. Central Ukraine is very laid back, moderately anti-West Ukrainian, moderately pro-Russian, speak Ukrainian and Russian (in towns). Southern and Eastern Ukraine are very anti-West Ukrainian, very pro-Russian, speak predominantly Russian
    language. Crimea always considered itself Russian; hate West Ukrainians.

    The gospel according to John Doe. Lot of hatred flying around.

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

    The key word being "almost".

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

    Biden has been gifted with Trump as an opponent, which helps his chances no end.

    In other words, sending weapons to Ukraine is better than something else.

    Letting Putin run riot?

    Apparently Trump Derangement Syndrome has much to do with Ukraine being
    "The New Holy Land". Ukraine worked hard against Trump in 2016. Ukraine is (or was) pushing for the New World Order, the imperialist warmonger ideal.

    Trump supporter do seem to believe this fatuous nonsense. It probably has got something to do with Zelensky rejecting Trump's attempt to try and blackmail the Ukraine into setting up a bogus investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden, which rightly got Trump
    impeached, even if the Republicans chose to ignore his criminal behavior. Trump has been anti-Ukraine ever since. Bullies resent it when their bullying gets shown up.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 19 23:05:17 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:01:33 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

    <snip>

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

    The longer lived radio active isotopes stay dangerous for a few hundred thousand years.

    Cuneiform script has survived for 5,400 years. If you used that script to mark your site a dangerous, few of the passers-by would be able to read what it said.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 06:15:14 2022
    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
    nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo lying)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bozo being weird)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 06:13:58 2022
    Bozo is the LAST person I would consult on this issue.


    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
    nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo lying)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bozo being weird)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 06:16:43 2022
    Bozo relies on wikishit, that's his problem.


    Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

    "the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
    nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

    "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
    (Bozo lying)

    "the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
    (Bozo being weird)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeff Liebermann@21:1/5 to bill.sloman@ieee.org on Tue Apr 19 23:21:46 2022
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

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

    Perhaps we should skip some of the inefficient intermediate steps and
    go directly from carbon (coal) to food:
    "Food from Coal-derived Materials by Microbial Synthesis" <https://www.nature.com/articles/211735b0>
    (sorry about the paywall, but I couldn't find a free version of the
    article).

    "Can Food Be Made From Coal?" (May 1984) <https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/food/1984/05/27/can-food-be-made-from-coal/d80567ac-c656-4e0b-9f54-d505bd6d261a/>
    --
    Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
    PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
    Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
    Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Wed Apr 20 06:22:30 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Bozo says I am attracted to Fox News.

    In fact, I did a little Fox News bashing in that reply.

    No point in debating anything with a chronic liar like Bozo Bill Sloman.
    When you refute its lies, it simply makes up more lies to cover those
    prior lies. It's fiction never ends...

    --
    Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

    X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:e88:b0:446:383a:62ec with SMTP id hf8-20020a0562140e8800b00446383a62ecmr14552704qvb.68.1650432676110; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
    X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:10c1:b0:63e:4f57:f533 with SMTP id w1-20020a05690210c100b0063e4f57f533mr18313526ybu.374.1650432675910; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
    Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
    In-Reply-To: <t3nhis$l52$2@dont-email.me>
    Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.208.108.19; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
    NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.208.108.19
    References: <XnsAE7EDC9EA064idtokenpost@144.76.35.252> <t3n4ha$kst$3@dont-email.me> <3neu5htglgoug4jqp5qprbf7jg5r2aku62@4ax.com> <t3nhis$l52$2@dont-email.me>
    User-Agent: G2/1.0
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Message-ID: <f07fa288-d272-4eb5-89d3-a7734f04db96n@googlegroups.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: The Ukraine War Will Go On Forever
    From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
    Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 05:31:16 +0000
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
    Lines: 24
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:666960

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

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

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

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

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

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 06:26:40 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:22:30 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t3o8r6$s0e$4@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
    USENET (**) has been 57.3% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
    least 1098 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
    504 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    u+u83qrF0I1h

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jeff.li...@gmail.com on Tue Apr 19 23:27:31 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:00:44 PM UTC+10, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    Europeans need to start building those solar farms on the Sahara. They delver electricity at a lower price per kilowatt hour than you can get by burning fossil carbon.
    "Desertec"
    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec>
    "The project failed twice due to the problem of transportation and cost-inefficiency. The initiative was revived in 2020 with a focus on
    green hydrogen, catering to both domestic demand and exports to
    foreign markets."

    "The Problem with Solar Energy in Africa" <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o> (18:19)
    1. Lack of sufficient interties between North Africa and Europe.

    That's a soluble problem. The cables aren't cheap but more of them are getting built all the time.

    2. Photoelectric is currently cheaper than concentrated solar power[1].

    Of course it is. Why would anybody use anything else these days? When China went in for really large scale manufacturing of the University of New South Wales high efficiency solar cells, they halved the unit cost at a stroke, and killed off concentrated
    solar power as a viable option. This link says that unit costs have fallen 82% since 2010

    https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/03/solar-costs-have-fallen-82-since-2010/

    3. Photovoltaic can be built locally, which is easier and cheaper than importing electricity from remote solar farms.

    Putting a solar farm in dry place with very little cloud cover, not too far away from the equator gives you quite a bit more sunlight on the solar cells. Germany is a bit too far north to give you a good result. and land around there is expensive.

    4. Water, exploitation and politics.

    [1] Note that the relative costs are constantly changing. This
    article paints a different picture of the comparative costs:
    "The cost of Concentrated Solar Power fell by 47% between 2010 and
    2019" <https://www.evwind.es/2020/07/29/the-cost-of-concentrated-solar-power-fell-by-47-between-2010-and-2019/76120>

    It does emphasis that photovoltaic generation has gotten steadily and smoothly cheaper in recent years. the economies of scale are kicking in big-time.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 19 23:55:28 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:22:37 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:

    Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

    <snip>

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

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

    Bill says I am attracted to Fox News.

    It certainly looks that way. Right-wing nitwits are their target audience.

    In fact, I did a little Fox News bashing in that reply.

    Where? " Fox News and Newsmax viewers in the comment sections are ripping the skin off of channel uploads by neocon warmongers."

    You seem to be claiming that when Fox News publish actual news about people in government - who you call neocon warmongers - Fox News viewers who are as silly as you are complain about it.
    Fox New does seem to give nitwits like you enough demented non-news opinion to keep you happy and watching.

    No point in debating anything with a chronic liar like Bill Sloman.

    As if John Doe could debate anything.

    When you refute its lies, it simply makes up more lies to cover those prior lies. It's fiction never ends...

    Jon Doe has never refuted any lie here. He seems to confuse reiterating his demented opinions with the rather more demanding process of demonstrating that what other people claim happens to be wrong. I disagree with his misapprehensions - which would be
    lies if he had any kind of clue about the stuff he talks about - which doesn't require any lying on my part.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to John Doe on Tue Apr 19 23:37:16 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 4:16:49 PM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
    Bill relies on wikishit, that's his problem.

    Actually, I don't. I use it as an easily accessible source of reasonably reliable information. I do check what the links I post actually say, but Wikipedia has procedure in place for getting rid of stuff that is actually wrong, and they do seem to work.

    John Doe doesn't like it because - like Cursitor Doom - he's addicted to nonsensical conspiracy theories, and Wikipedia's fact checking procedures throw them out an unverifiable nonsense.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Wed Apr 20 09:20:05 2022
    On 20/04/2022 08:05, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:01:33 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

    <snip>

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

    The longer lived radio active isotopes stay dangerous for a few hundred thousand years.

    Cuneiform script has survived for 5,400 years. If you used that script to mark your site a dangerous, few of the passers-by would be able to read what it said.


    The science doesn't change, even though language does. Warning signs
    can be updated as needed, at minimal cost. People in the future will
    still have Geiger counters and be able to check if the site is safe.
    There are enough real challenges here that you don't need to invent
    silly ones.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Wed Apr 20 09:16:25 2022
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
    have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
    the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
    it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
    simply because there is not as much sun.

    Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
    Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden). But solar and
    wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?)
    could well be the right answer for Australia.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 09:28:30 2022
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

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

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

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

    Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
    less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
    waste storage easier.

    I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and
    concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
    you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as the
    one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and mixing
    with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there, keeping
    us nice and warm from below.

    (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
    pure speculation.)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Doe@21:1/5 to Edward Hernandez on Wed Apr 20 07:54:20 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    Eddie wants so badly to nym-shift. That's a no-no here, Eddie!

    Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

    https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

    See also...
    John Doe <always.look@message.header> (astraweb)
    Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

    Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

    Spanked Eddie...

    --
    Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

    Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.ams4.POSTED!
    not-for-mail
    From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: OT: The Ukraine War Will Go On Forever
    Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
    References: <XnsAE7EDC9EA064idtokenpost@144.76.35.252> <t3n4ha$kst$3@dont-email.me> <3neu5htglgoug4jqp5qprbf7jg5r2aku62@4ax.com> <t3nhis$l52$2@dont-email.me> <f07fa288-d272-4eb5-89d3-a7734f04db96n@googlegroups.com> <t3o8r6$s0e$4@dont-email.me>
    Lines: 40
    Message-ID: <AIN7K.1151818$dS2.458493@usenetxs.com>
    X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
    NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:26:40 UTC
    Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:26:40 GMT
    X-Received-Bytes: 2220
    Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:666972 free.spam:18004

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:22:30 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t3o8r6$s0e$4@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to USENET (**) has been 57.3% of its posts contributing "nothing except
    insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
    least 1098 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
    504 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    u+u83qrF0I1h




    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Edward Hernandez@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 07:55:22 2022
    XPost: free.spam

    The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

    The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

    And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

    The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
    breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
    CLUELESS...

    And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
    Wed, 20 Apr 2022 07:54:20 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <t3oe7b$377$1@dont-email.me>).

    NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

    Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
    (UTC):

    Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
    except insults to this group.

    Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
    to USENET (**) has been 57.4% of its posts contributing "nothing except insults" to USENET.

    ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
    least 1100 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
    506 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

    This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
    readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
    follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

    LV0UESTEqy+A

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 11:14:42 2022
    David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

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

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

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

    Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
    less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
    waste storage easier.

    I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
    you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as the
    one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and mixing
    with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there, keeping
    us nice and warm from below.

    (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
    pure speculation.)


    That doesn't look sane to me. It's likely to spew the waste all
    over the place in short order. And there isn't really a lot of
    other radioactive stuff already down there, either.

    The real solution is to hide the highly radioactive and long-
    lived waste in some uninteresting, geologically stable dry rock
    layer.

    Jeroen Belleman

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 05:14:02 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

    The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build >>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem >>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.) >>>
    Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
    while we also work on short term solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
    have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
    the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
    it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
    simply because there is not as much sun.

    There's actually more in your summer. And wind power works pretty much everywhere.

    Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
    Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).

    You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is quite a bit more expensive than wind power.

    But solar and wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?)
    could well be the right answer for Australia.

    Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds.

    We've got a a Tesla lithium ion grid storage battery in South Australia simply because Elon Musk could divert a hundred electric car batteries from his production line and ship them to Australia with very little effort. The economy of scale was there
    already.

    Quite how we get to mass production with vanadium flow batteries is a more interesting question. Government intervention would work, but they'd probably spend so long working out whether it was the right choice that Elon Musk would have sewn up the
    market.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 05:53:07 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:28:38 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

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

    Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
    plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.

    Dream on. Uranium fissions into elements with atomic weights closer to 120. Some of the fission products are stable. Lots of them are radioactive.

    Technicium has five isotopes with atomic weights from 95 to 99. They are all radioactive which makes technicium the lightest element with no stable isotopes

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

    Most people have heard of Cobalt-60, which also shows up in nuclear reactor waste. There are lots of others.

    If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
    alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.

    Lead and arsenic have stable isotopes which are lethal without being radioactive. Reprocessing fuel to take out the radioactive isotope waste is an expensive idea, and you are still stuck with the long-lived radioactive isotopes, which aren't all that
    useful. Taking out the U-235 and Pu-239 would make sense, but you can use them to make bombs as well as regular nuclear reactors, which does frighten politicians.

    The molten salt thorium reactor fans make a lot of fuss about the absence of plutonium, but U-233 can be used to make bombs in much the same way as plutonium. They cheerfully ignore the radioactive fission products, as you have done above.

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

    A century is rather less than a couple of hundred thousand years.

    Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making waste storage easier.

    You are actually thinking about thorium fission molten salt reactors, and they don't produce enough less of the dangerous stuff to make any practical difference.

    I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
    you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as the
    one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and mixing
    with all the other radioactive stuff that's already down there, keeping
    us nice and warm from below.

    (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
    pure speculation.)

    And it could make the next volcanic eruption even more exciting than usual. Nuclear waste has shorter lived - and thus more radioactive - isotopes that stuff which hasn't seen a neutron since it got created in a supernova more than 4.5 billion years ago.
    The original shorter-lived stuff was all gone in the first billion years.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Wed Apr 20 15:28:07 2022
    On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote: >>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

    The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build >>>>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem >>>>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.) >>>>>
    Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
    while we also work on short term solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels. >>>
    Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
    have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
    pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
    the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
    it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
    simply because there is not as much sun.

    There's actually more in your summer.

    No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
    have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
    hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
    Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
    steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

    And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
    some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going
    for half the year.

    And wind power works pretty much everywhere.

    It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
    middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
    plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills,
    and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
    of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of
    our hills). And people don't want them there.

    There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
    even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
    sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available.

    (We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
    wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
    Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
    or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
    with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
    electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
    but it's hard to convince some people.)


    Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
    Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).

    You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is quite a bit more expensive than wind power.


    Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as
    disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
    choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway -
    nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death
    and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in comparison to other methods, including wind. (The few accidents that
    have occurred lead to a lot more publicity - you never year about all
    the accidents involved in mounting or maintaining wind turbines.) The
    impact to the environment and nature, in the way Norwegians want to see
    and use their nature, would be much less with nuclear power than wind power.

    Then there is the stability of the supply. For power generation, you
    want a base constant stable supply, with extra generation when there are
    peaks in the demand. Wind power is not stable (unless it is very high
    masts out at sea), and goes up and down independently from demand.
    Nuclear power (which is very stable) combined with hydroelectric (which
    we have, and which can be turned up and down quickly as needed) is an
    ideal combination - far better than covering half the country in
    windmills and massive lithium battery arrays.

    But solar and wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?)
    could well be the right answer for Australia.

    Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds.


    Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is
    significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
    someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these
    problems, that would be good news.

    The one key remaining challenge for sodium ion batteries is low number
    of charge/discharge cycles. When that is solved (and I expect that to
    be just a matter of time), they'll be great for grid storage.

    We've got a a Tesla lithium ion grid storage battery in South Australia simply because Elon Musk could divert a hundred electric car batteries from his production line and ship them to Australia with very little effort. The economy of scale was
    there already.

    Quite how we get to mass production with vanadium flow batteries is a more interesting question. Government intervention would work, but they'd probably spend so long working out whether it was the right choice that Elon Musk would have sewn up the
    market.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Wed Apr 20 15:36:29 2022
    On 20/04/2022 11:14, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

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

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

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

    Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
    less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
    waste storage easier.

    I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and
    concrete, and drop it in a lava lake.  It's far denser than lava - if
    you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as
    the one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and
    mixing with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there,
    keeping us nice and warm from below.

    (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
    pure speculation.)


    That doesn't look sane to me. It's likely to spew the waste all
    over the place in short order. And there isn't really a lot of
    other radioactive stuff already down there, either.


    How would it "spew the waste" ? We don't see much lava leaking out.
    The balls of waste would sink (though I don't know how deeply) before
    melting apart and being spread around by currents in the mantle. The
    heavy elements would gradually sink further.

    (I'm not saying you are wrong, because I certainly don't know that I am
    right.)

    The real solution is to hide the highly radioactive and long-
    lived waste in some uninteresting, geologically stable dry rock
    layer.


    Certainly that's the traditional solution. The key points are to keep
    enough rock between the waste and the surface to stop radiation, to
    minimise the risk of getting the stuff into underground water, and to
    stop people getting in to it.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 09:41:32 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:36:37 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 11:14, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

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

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

    You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against
    future intrusions.
    That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century... >>
    Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
    less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
    waste storage easier.

    I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and
    concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
    you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as
    the one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and
    mixing with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there,
    keeping us nice and warm from below.

    (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
    pure speculation.)


    That doesn't look sane to me. It's likely to spew the waste all
    over the place in short order. And there isn't really a lot of
    other radioactive stuff already down there, either.

    How would it "spew the waste" ? We don't see much lava leaking out.

    Have you never seen pictures of a volcano erupting? They can throw enough ash into the stratosphere to force airlines to cancel some flights and reroute others.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/24/volcanic-ash-cloud-flight-delays-heathrow

    The balls of waste would sink (though I don't know how deeply) before
    melting apart and being spread around by currents in the mantle. The
    heavy elements would gradually sink further.

    (I'm not saying you are wrong, because I certainly don't know that I am right.)
    The real solution is to hide the highly radioactive and long-
    lived waste in some uninteresting, geologically stable dry rock
    layer.

    Certainly that's the traditional solution. The key points are to keep
    enough rock between the waste and the surface to stop radiation, to
    minimise the risk of getting the stuff into underground water, and to
    stop people getting in to it.

    The Australian solution was Synroc.

    https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc-facility

    I knew Lou Vance when he was an a undergraduate at Melbourne University in the 1960's. Smart guy.

    It concentrates on keeping the radioactive atoms locked up in insoluble rock. Apparently it would work fine, but nobody seems to be actually using it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 10:28:19 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:28:17 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote: >>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

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

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

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

    The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels. >>>
    Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
    have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
    pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
    the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway >> it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
    simply because there is not as much sun.

    There's actually more in your summer.

    No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
    have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
    hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
    Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
    steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

    It's the same radiation source. The angle doesn't make any difference to the amount of light hitting a panel that is pointed at the sun. The light does go through a thicker layer of atmosphere, but that atmosphere is mostly transparent at the relevant
    wavelengths.

    Everybody has roughly 50% cloud cover - the water goes up into the atmosphere until it condenses into cloud, then comes down again. There are places that are too far from the ocean for water vapour to get to all that often, but if you put a solar farm
    there you have to build an expensive high voltage transmission line to get it to the customers.

    Australian venture capitalist are talking about setting up solar farms on the north coast of Australia to make power to ship through a submarine cable to Singapore, but they aren't trying to put them far enough inland to get away from cloud cover.

    And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
    some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going
    for half the year.

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't turn off from equinox to equinox.

    And wind power works pretty much everywhere.
    It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
    middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
    plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills,
    and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
    of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of
    our hills). And people don't want them there.

    Not looming above my backyard. And while "relatively accessible hills" may offer cheaper installation costs, there's no absolute barrier to spending more money to put windmills of top of slightly less accessible hills. Nuclear power generation isn't
    cheap, and windmills deliver appreciably cheaper power

    There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
    even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
    sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available.

    (We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
    wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
    Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
    or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
    with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
    electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
    but it's hard to convince some people.)

    Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
    Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).

    You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is quite a bit more expensive than wind power.

    Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
    choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway - nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death
    and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in comparison to other methods, including wind. (The few accidents that
    have occurred lead to a lot more publicity - you never year about all
    the accidents involved in mounting or maintaining wind turbines.) The
    impact to the environment and nature, in the way Norwegians want to see
    and use their nature, would be much less with nuclear power than wind power.

    Fukushima. Geology isn't an exact science.

    Then there is the stability of the supply. For power generation, you
    want a base constant stable supply, with extra generation when there are peaks in the demand. Wind power is not stable (unless it is very high
    masts out at sea), and goes up and down independently from demand.
    Nuclear power (which is very stable) combined with hydroelectric (which
    we have, and which can be turned up and down quickly as needed) is an
    ideal combination - far better than covering half the country in
    windmills and massive lithium battery arrays.

    You can bury the battery arrays - and Norway has enough hydroelctric power that you could use it for pumped storage. You certainly wouldn't need to cover anything like half the country with windmills or solar farms. About 1% of land area seems to be
    enough but everybody wants it to be in somebody elses back yard,.

    But solar and wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?) could well be the right answer for Australia.

    Vanadium flow batteries seem to be the correct choice on technical grounds.

    Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle.

    Every energy storaqe scheme loses some energy between input and output. The vanadium flow cells didn't look much worse than everything else

    Lead is poisonous and expensive too, and that doesn't prevent people from using lead acid batteries

    If someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these problems, that would be good news.

    Getting the plumbing watertight is all it takes.

    The one key remaining challenge for sodium ion batteries is low number of charge/discharge cycles. When that is solved (and I expect that to be just a matter of time), they'll be great for grid storage.

    A local company - Gelion

    https://gelion.com/

    think that Zinc bromine is the answer. I responded to one of their job ads - you'd think that a Ph.D. in chemistry and a lot of experience with electronics would have whetted their interest, but it didn't. They probably only hire their own graduate
    students.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed Apr 20 11:30:17 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:53:12 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:28:38 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:

    The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
    plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.

    Dream on. Uranium fissions into elements with atomic weights closer to 120. Some of the fission products are stable. Lots of them are radioactive.

    Most people have heard of Cobalt-60, which also shows up in nuclear reactor waste. There are lots of others.

    If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
    alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.

    Lead and arsenic have stable isotopes which are lethal without being radioactive. Reprocessing fuel to take out the radioactive isotope waste is an expensive idea...

    But that wasn't what I was suggesting; the weapons-proliferation consequence of leaving fissile material
    in the waste is only sensitive to two chemical constituents of the fuel elements. Other neutron-activated
    bits of reactors aren't part of the reprocessing step, so most (by tonnage) waste would be buried as-is.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Wed Apr 20 21:46:32 2022
    On 20/04/2022 18:41, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:36:37 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 11:14, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>
    Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to >>>>>>> an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So >>>>>>> don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is >>>>>>> put into storage. During those times security can be increased.

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

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

    You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against
    future intrusions.
    That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century... >>>>
    Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
    less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
    waste storage easier.

    I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and
    concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
    you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as
    the one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and
    mixing with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there, >>>> keeping us nice and warm from below.

    (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
    pure speculation.)


    That doesn't look sane to me. It's likely to spew the waste all
    over the place in short order. And there isn't really a lot of
    other radioactive stuff already down there, either.

    How would it "spew the waste" ? We don't see much lava leaking out.

    Have you never seen pictures of a volcano erupting? They can throw enough ash into the stratosphere to force airlines to cancel some flights and reroute others.


    Lava lakes do not often erupt, and rarely do so violently - violent
    eruptions come from a build-up of pressure in an enclosed magma chamber,
    which you don't get with a lake open to the air.

    And the whole point of this suggestion is to have the ball sink, not
    hang around waiting for an overflow of lava. The big questions are how
    quickly it would sink, and how deep it could get. I don't know the
    answers to that, and I am quite happy to be shown that a reasoned and
    factual argument for why it would not sink far enough or fail to work
    for other reasons.

    However, you may assume that I have read the Ladybird book on volcanoes.
    I am aware that volcanoes can erupt.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/24/volcanic-ash-cloud-flight-delays-heathrow

    The balls of waste would sink (though I don't know how deeply) before
    melting apart and being spread around by currents in the mantle. The
    heavy elements would gradually sink further.

    (I'm not saying you are wrong, because I certainly don't know that I am
    right.)
    The real solution is to hide the highly radioactive and long-
    lived waste in some uninteresting, geologically stable dry rock
    layer.

    Certainly that's the traditional solution. The key points are to keep
    enough rock between the waste and the surface to stop radiation, to
    minimise the risk of getting the stuff into underground water, and to
    stop people getting in to it.

    The Australian solution was Synroc.

    https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc-facility

    I knew Lou Vance when he was an a undergraduate at Melbourne University in the 1960's. Smart guy.

    It concentrates on keeping the radioactive atoms locked up in insoluble rock. Apparently it would work fine, but nobody seems to be actually using it.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadenc@21:1/5 to Phil Allison on Wed Apr 20 23:32:31 2022
    Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:538754cf-ec29-458c- 90e5-7acc4f2625b2n@googlegroups.com:

    Sanctions will ruin the Russian economy.
    Putin will be overthrown.


    Or assassinated. But yes, it will end. The shame is that it doesn't
    end with a dozen bunker busters bombs penetrating and destroying the
    Kremlin and the war crime stupidity once and for all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 19:59:25 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:16:33 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

    The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build >>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem >>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.) >>>
    Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
    while we also work on short term solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
    have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
    the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
    it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
    simply because there is not as much sun.

    Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
    Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden). But solar and
    wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?) could well be the right answer for Australia.

    What problem do you think nuclear power is the solution to, 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 Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 19:46:42 2022
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 5:46:40 AM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 18:41, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:36:37 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 11:14, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote: >>>>>
    Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
    an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
    don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
    put into storage. During those times security can be increased.

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

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

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

    Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much >>>> less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making >>>> waste storage easier.

    I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and >>>> concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if >>>> you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as
    the one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and
    mixing with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there, >>>> keeping us nice and warm from below.

    (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's >>>> pure speculation.)


    That doesn't look sane to me. It's likely to spew the waste all
    over the place in short order. And there isn't really a lot of
    other radioactive stuff already down there, either.

    How would it "spew the waste" ? We don't see much lava leaking out.

    Have you never seen pictures of a volcano erupting? They can throw enough ash into the stratosphere to force airlines to cancel some flights and reroute others.

    Lava lakes do not often erupt, and rarely do so violently - violent
    eruptions come from a build-up of pressure in an enclosed magma chamber, which you don't get with a lake open to the air.

    When you are talking about radioactive waste that can still be active after 100,000 years or so "rarely" becomes less comforting.

    And the whole point of this suggestion is to have the ball sink, not
    hang around waiting for an overflow of lava. The big questions are how quickly it would sink, and how deep it could get. I don't know the
    answers to that, and I am quite happy to be shown that a reasoned and
    factual argument for why it would not sink far enough or fail to work
    for other reasons.

    However, you may assume that I have read the Ladybird book on volcanoes.
    I am aware that volcanoes can erupt.

    But seem unwilling to process the information.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/24/volcanic-ash-cloud-flight-delays-heathrow

    The balls of waste would sink (though I don't know how deeply) before
    melting apart and being spread around by currents in the mantle. The
    heavy elements would gradually sink further.

    (I'm not saying you are wrong, because I certainly don't know that I am
    right.)

    The real solution is to hide the highly radioactive and long-
    lived waste in some uninteresting, geologically stable dry rock
    layer.

    Certainly that's the traditional solution. The key points are to keep
    enough rock between the waste and the surface to stop radiation, to
    minimise the risk of getting the stuff into underground water, and to
    stop people getting in to it.

    The Australian solution was Synroc.

    https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc-facility

    I knew Lou Vance when he was an a undergraduate at Melbourne University in the 1960's. Smart guy.

    It concentrates on keeping the radioactive atoms locked up in insoluble rock. Apparently it would work fine, but nobody seems to be actually using it.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 20:01:47 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:28:38 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

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

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

    You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against future intrusions.
    That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...
    Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
    less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
    waste storage easier.

    I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
    you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as the
    one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and mixing
    with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there, keeping
    us nice and warm from below.

    (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
    pure speculation.)

    So, you think the solution to nuclear waste is to ship it to Ethiopia? Yeah, great idea!!!

    --

    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 Ricky@21:1/5 to All on Wed Apr 20 19:57:37 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 1:01:33 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

    What's the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using the electricity, right?
    Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
    plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.
    If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
    alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.

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

    I don't believe that is true. Nuclear waste is stored onsite for longer than a few years because in the US we have no other place to store it. In fact, the US government has to pay for that on site storage because they had promised to provide a long
    term storage facility, and failed to do so. However...

    Now that it is known there is no long term storage, will new nuclear plants be required to pay for this long term storage or will the US government (meaning all of us) have to pay for it? No wonder our taxes are so high!

    --

    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 Ricky@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Wed Apr 20 20:08:55 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:14:49 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

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

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

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

    Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
    less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
    waste storage easier.

    I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
    you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as the
    one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and mixing
    with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there, keeping
    us nice and warm from below.

    (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
    pure speculation.)

    That doesn't look sane to me. It's likely to spew the waste all
    over the place in short order. And there isn't really a lot of
    other radioactive stuff already down there, either.

    The real solution is to hide the highly radioactive and long-
    lived waste in some uninteresting, geologically stable dry rock
    layer.

    We could just dress it up like Alice and give it to Ralph Kramden...

    Pow! Right to the moon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98qw86DsdZ0

    --

    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 Ricky@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Wed Apr 20 20:18:14 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:53:12 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:28:38 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

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

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

    Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
    plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.
    Dream on. Uranium fissions into elements with atomic weights closer to 120. Some of the fission products are stable. Lots of them are radioactive.

    Technicium has five isotopes with atomic weights from 95 to 99. They are all radioactive which makes technicium the lightest element with no stable isotopes

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

    Most people have heard of Cobalt-60, which also shows up in nuclear reactor waste. There are lots of others.
    If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
    alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.
    Lead and arsenic have stable isotopes which are lethal without being radioactive. Reprocessing fuel to take out the radioactive isotope waste is an expensive idea, and you are still stuck with the long-lived radioactive isotopes, which aren't all that
    useful. Taking out the U-235 and Pu-239 would make sense, but you can use them to make bombs as well as regular nuclear reactors, which does frighten politicians.

    The molten salt thorium reactor fans make a lot of fuss about the absence of plutonium, but U-233 can be used to make bombs in much the same way as plutonium. They cheerfully ignore the radioactive fission products, as you have done above.

    Thorium-232 is fertile, but isn't the U-233 the fissile part that is burned up to power the reactor? So how much U-233 would be left? I was under the impression that in a molten salt reactor the fuel is continuously cleaned of the troublesome isotopes
    and new fuel is fed in. I know there are a number of types, but they don't all get loaded once and used until they burn up the fuel.

    --

    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 Ricky@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 20:42:10 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote: >>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

    The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
    the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem >>>>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.) >>>>>
    Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/, >>>>> while we also work on short term solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels. >>>
    Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
    have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
    pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
    the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway >> it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
    simply because there is not as much sun.

    There's actually more in your summer.
    No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
    have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
    hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
    Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
    steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

    And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
    some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going
    for half the year.
    And wind power works pretty much everywhere.
    It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
    middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
    plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills,
    and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
    of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of
    our hills). And people don't want them there.

    There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
    even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
    sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available.

    Sounds like Norway is pretty screwed. I suggest you limit your population, "one child" policy sounds like a good idea. Free up some space and live like you are in Texas.


    (We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
    wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
    Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
    or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
    with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
    electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
    but it's hard to convince some people.)

    No one? Not even when they are cold and in the dark? So you think they'd rather see cooling towers or large plumes of coal smoke?

    It is easy to stop exporting electricity, pay more for it and they will sell it to you instead of importing!


    Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
    Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).

    You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is quite a bit more expensive than wind power.

    Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
    choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway - nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death
    and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in comparison to other methods, including wind.

    Except that the total cost and the total human impact won't be known for thousands of years.

    It's kind of like carving into a hillside to build a home and having to dispose of the waste slag by dumping it in your side yard, not knowing for sure what impact that will have in 20, 40 or 60 years from now. That slag looks stable, but what happens
    if you get a very unusual rain storm that doesn't move for a week or two (think Houston, TX), combined with an earth quake. That pile of slag might impact your children who would be living in the house by then.


    (The few accidents that
    have occurred lead to a lot more publicity - you never year about all
    the accidents involved in mounting or maintaining wind turbines.) The
    impact to the environment and nature, in the way Norwegians want to see
    and use their nature, would be much less with nuclear power than wind power.

    The accidents are a real possibility, but not the biggest danger. But I was surprised to learn just how probable an accident is. Using the numbers the US comes up with for reactor breech, JUST FROM EARTHQUAKES, factor 100 reactors, 1 in 70,000 chance
    per year (some are worse, much worse, the action limit is 1 in 15,000 I believe) and a 70 year lifetime of the reactor, you get around a 1 in 10 chance of a core breach with the present number of reactors. 1 in 10 is not so small really. Would you play
    Russian roulette with a 10 shooter? Maybe a 100 shooter, or a 1,000 shooter, but a 10 shot revolver? I think not! And that is ONLY from earthquakes!


    Then there is the stability of the supply. For power generation, you
    want a base constant stable supply, with extra generation when there are peaks in the demand.

    Really? That sounds very inefficient to me. How about an energy source that is cheap enough, that it can be over built by a factor of 2 or 3 or 4 and still supply all the energy required when it drops to a quarter of the needed output? Add some
    storage and it's all good!


    Wind power is not stable (unless it is very high
    masts out at sea), and goes up and down independently from demand.
    Nuclear power (which is very stable) combined with hydroelectric (which
    we have, and which can be turned up and down quickly as needed) is an
    ideal combination - far better than covering half the country in
    windmills and massive lithium battery arrays.

    If you are going to wish for hydroelectric, then why not wish for low cost batteries? It's no different. France has managed to build enough hydro and pumped hydro to supply 30% of their needs. I wonder why their fluctuations are so much lower than the
    rest of the world? In the US we can't even use nuclear for 50% of our peak demand. So nuclear is not a solution unless, you add storage. That's essentially what hydro is, the water coming into the lake is stored until needed, because there typically
    is not enough of it to provide power all the time. Pumped hydro is literally stored energy from other sources. Or you use batteries or other means of storage. But it needs to be pointed out that a steady base supply has the same poor match to variable
    demand as intermittent sources.


    But solar and wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?)
    could well be the right answer for Australia.

    Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds.

    Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
    someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these problems, that would be good news.

    Poisonous??? You propose nuclear, then knock vanadium flow batteries because of poisons? WTF!!!

    --

    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 Ricky on Wed Apr 20 23:10:16 2022
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:57:41 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 1:01:33 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

    [about high-level reactor waste]

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

    I don't believe that is true. Nuclear waste is stored onsite for longer than a few years because in the US we have no other place to store it.

    There's a storage onsite at... how many sites? They're ALL of them 'other place to store' sites.

    In fact, the US government has to pay for that on site storage because they had promised to provide a long term storage facility, and failed to do so. However...

    Now that it is known there is no long term storage, will new nuclear plants be required to pay for this long term storage or will the US government (meaning all of us) have to pay for it? No wonder our taxes are so high!

    The ability of folk to kick the problem into next year without a solution isn't a storage
    problem, so much as a political will vacuum.
    Choosing a site (or sites) is a hot-potato issue, often dropped. It isn't impossible. It might
    be inevitable, in fact.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Wed Apr 20 23:40:50 2022
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 4:16:04 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:28:17 PM UTC+10, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter
    Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

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

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

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

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

    <snip>

    Here in Norway it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive, simply because there is not as much sun.

    There's actually more in your summer.

    No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than
    you have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the
    full 24 hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the
    Arctic Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at
    a much steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

    It's the same radiation source. The angle doesn't make any difference
    to the amount of light hitting a panel that is pointed at the sun.
    The light does go through a thicker layer of atmosphere, but that atmosphere is mostly transparent at the relevant wavelengths.

    The angle makes a /huge/ difference to the light per m² of ground area.

    At the risk of doing a bit of condescension, flat ground area doesn't come into it.

    Yes, you can (and do) angle the panel so that it does not need to be
    too big, but to get the same amount of power you need to shadow a much larger area than you would in Australia. You can put up a bit of solar panelling without it being too intrusive, but not much. The angle also
    means that shadows from hills and mountains - which surround most towns
    here - cut off much more of the direct sunlight.

    So you put the panels well up the hills where the slope gets a good deal closer to matching the average angle of solar incidence. There's a lot less shadowing up there, which also helps.

    The only reason Norway is as habitable as it is, is the sea - in
    particular, the Gulf Stream keeps us warm. That does not contribute to
    solar power generation. Surely you can understand that a country that Australia gets more sun power than Norway!

    Obviously, but we were talking about putting up solar panels, not averaging over the surface of the whole country. When you put up that kind of straw man argument, you are inviting a condescending response.

    Everybody has roughly 50% cloud cover - the water goes up into the atmosphere until it condenses into cloud, then comes down again.
    There are places that are too far from the ocean for water vapour to
    get to all that often, but if you put a solar farm there you have to
    build an expensive high voltage transmission line to get it to the customers.

    I realise you haven't been to Norway and know little about its climate or geography. But you /have/ been to Australia, right?

    Australian venture capitalist are talking about setting up solar
    farms on the north coast of Australia to make power to ship through a submarine cable to Singapore, but they aren't trying to put them far enough inland to get away from cloud cover.

    And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give
    you some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep
    you going for half the year.

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
    circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
    turn off from equinox to equinox.

    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?

    People who make a habit of posting poorly thought out comments don't like their sloppy thinking being pilloried.

    Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about the country I live in?

    You don't seem to have though too hard about what they actually mean.

    A local company - Gelion

    https://gelion.com/

    think that Zinc bromine is the answer. I responded to one of their
    job ads - you'd think that a Ph.D. in chemistry and a lot of
    experience with electronics would have whetted their interest, but it didn't. They probably only hire their own graduate students.

    Maybe you talked to them, or perhaps wrote a covering letter. That could have put them off.

    The cover letter did mention my age. That does put people off. But they made a fuss about their core staff being academics, and that sort of crew does tend to hire people who look clever to them by being clever in same way that they are. Industry rarely
    has that luxury.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Thu Apr 21 08:15:53 2022
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:28:17 PM UTC+10, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter
    Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

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

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

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

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

    Different power generation choices make sense in different
    places, and have different costs (not just monetary costs -
    space, environment and pollution are all costs). In Australia,
    solar power should be all over the place - you have plenty of
    sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway it's a very different
    matter - solar power is much more expensive, simply because
    there is not as much sun.

    There's actually more in your summer.

    No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than
    you have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the
    full 24 hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the
    Arctic Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at
    a much steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

    It's the same radiation source. The angle doesn't make any difference
    to the amount of light hitting a panel that is pointed at the sun.
    The light does go through a thicker layer of atmosphere, but that
    atmosphere is mostly transparent at the relevant wavelengths.

    The angle makes a /huge/ difference to the light per m² of ground area.
    Yes, you can (and do) angle the panel so that it does not need to be
    too big, but to get the same amount of power you need to shadow a much
    larger area than you would in Australia. You can put up a bit of solar panelling without it being too intrusive, but not much. The angle also
    means that shadows from hills and mountains - which surround most towns
    here - cut off much more of the direct sunlight.

    The only reason Norway is as habitable as it is, is the sea - in
    particular, the Gulf Stream keeps us warm. That does not contribute to
    solar power generation. Surely you can understand that a country that Australia gets more sun power than Norway!


    Everybody has roughly 50% cloud cover - the water goes up into the
    atmosphere until it condenses into cloud, then comes down again.
    There are places that are too far from the ocean for water vapour to
    get to all that often, but if you put a solar farm there you have to
    build an expensive high voltage transmission line to get it to the
    customers.

    I realise you haven't been to Norway and know little about its climate
    or geography. But you /have/ been to Australia, right?


    Australian venture capitalist are talking about setting up solar
    farms on the north coast of Australia to make power to ship through a submarine cable to Singapore, but they aren't trying to put them far
    enough inland to get away from cloud cover.

    And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give
    you some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep
    you going for half the year.

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
    circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
    turn off from equinox to equinox.

    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
    Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about
    the country I live in?

    A local company - Gelion

    https://gelion.com/

    think that Zinc bromine is the answer. I responded to one of their
    job ads - you'd think that a Ph.D. in chemistry and a lot of
    experience with electronics would have whetted their interest, but it
    didn't. They probably only hire their own graduate students.


    Maybe you talked to them, or perhaps wrote a covering letter. That
    could have put them off.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Apr 21 05:35:44 2022
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:28:17 PM UTC+10, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter
    Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

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

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

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

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

    Different power generation choices make sense in different
    places, and have different costs (not just monetary costs -
    space, environment and pollution are all costs). In Australia,
    solar power should be all over the place - you have plenty of
    sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway it's a very different
    matter - solar power is much more expensive, simply because
    there is not as much sun.

    There's actually more in your summer.

    No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than
    you have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the
    full 24 hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the
    Arctic Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at
    a much steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

    It's the same radiation source. The angle doesn't make any difference
    to the amount of light hitting a panel that is pointed at the sun.
    The light does go through a thicker layer of atmosphere, but that atmosphere is mostly transparent at the relevant wavelengths.
    The angle makes a /huge/ difference to the light per m² of ground area. Yes, you can (and do) angle the panel so that it does not need to be
    too big, but to get the same amount of power you need to shadow a much larger area than you would in Australia. You can put up a bit of solar panelling without it being too intrusive, but not much. The angle also
    means that shadows from hills and mountains - which surround most towns
    here - cut off much more of the direct sunlight.

    The only reason Norway is as habitable as it is, is the sea - in
    particular, the Gulf Stream keeps us warm. That does not contribute to
    solar power generation. Surely you can understand that a country that Australia gets more sun power than Norway!

    Everybody has roughly 50% cloud cover - the water goes up into the atmosphere until it condenses into cloud, then comes down again.
    There are places that are too far from the ocean for water vapour to
    get to all that often, but if you put a solar farm there you have to
    build an expensive high voltage transmission line to get it to the customers.
    I realise you haven't been to Norway and know little about its climate
    or geography. But you /have/ been to Australia, right?

    Australian venture capitalist are talking about setting up solar
    farms on the north coast of Australia to make power to ship through a submarine cable to Singapore, but they aren't trying to put them far enough inland to get away from cloud cover.

    And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give
    you some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep
    you going for half the year.

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
    circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
    turn off from equinox to equinox.
    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
    Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about
    the country I live in?

    This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country
    because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're not.

    If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not correct, explain why. It's that simple.

    It is not uncommon for Bill to be in denial of some fact. He may pull up some obscure paper that doesn't actually say what he claims it says. When he says things that aren't fact, you can call him on it. But calling him a twat just shows you have no
    argument and you have gotten exposed and are pissed about it (Phil A's main mode of living).


    A local company - Gelion

    https://gelion.com/

    think that Zinc bromine is the answer. I responded to one of their
    job ads - you'd think that a Ph.D. in chemistry and a lot of
    experience with electronics would have whetted their interest, but it didn't. They probably only hire their own graduate students.

    Maybe you talked to them, or perhaps wrote a covering letter. That
    could have put them off.

    Yes, doubling down! A good move in blackjack, but not so much in the twat domain.

    --

    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 David Brown@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu Apr 21 15:53:30 2022
    On 21/04/2022 05:42, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote: >>>>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

    The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
    the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem >>>>>>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.) >>>>>>>
    Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/, >>>>>>> while we also work on short term solutions.

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

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

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

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

    It's taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing with long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated. They haven't been by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up a repository for long term storage - several hundreds of thousands
    of years - and they may never succeed. Not in my backyard is a potent slogan. >>>>>
    But we have no other sane option, we have to start building now indeed and cover by short term solutions.

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

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

    The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels. >>>>>
    Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and >>>> have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and >>>> pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over >>>> the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway >>>> it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
    simply because there is not as much sun.

    There's actually more in your summer.
    No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
    have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
    hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
    Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
    steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

    And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
    some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going
    for half the year.
    And wind power works pretty much everywhere.
    It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
    middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
    plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills,
    and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
    of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of
    our hills). And people don't want them there.

    There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
    even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
    sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available.

    Sounds like Norway is pretty screwed. I suggest you limit your population, "one child" policy sounds like a good idea. Free up some space and live like you are in Texas.


    We are one of only about two or three countries in the world that
    actually make a profit, rather than continuously increasing their
    national debt - and we are the only such country you'd want to live in.
    We are in the top ranks for almost any measurement of countries - live expectancy, health care, income, lack of poverty, happiness, clean air,
    lack of corruption, trust in each other, democracy, low crime rates.
    Yeah, we are really screwed.

    We are still far from perfect, and there are certain areas where
    people's attitudes need to change. Power generation is one of them - we
    have been too used to cheap, clean power for too long, and most people
    here don't understand how electricity import and export really works.


    (We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
    wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
    Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
    or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
    with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
    electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity
    generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
    but it's hard to convince some people.)

    No one? Not even when they are cold and in the dark? So you think they'd rather see cooling towers or large plumes of coal smoke?


    Do you ever read my posts before jumping to conclusions? Maybe I am too long-winded and you skim over parts.


    It is easy to stop exporting electricity, pay more for it and they will sell it to you instead of importing!


    What a na√Įve fairytale world you live in!


    Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
    Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).

    You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is quite a bit more expensive than wind power.

    Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as
    disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
    choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway -
    nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death
    and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in
    comparison to other methods, including wind.

    Except that the total cost and the total human impact won't be known for thousands of years.


    We do, however, know that without a massive change to the way we get
    energy, the impact to the earth and humanity within a century or so will
    make the impact in a thousand years time almost irrelevant.

    The long-term cost of storing nuclear waste is a can we can kick down
    the road - unlike the cost of continued use of fossil fuels at the
    current rate.

    Solar and wind power will help, but it is not a complete solution.

    It's kind of like carving into a hillside to build a home and having to dispose of the waste slag by dumping it in your side yard, not knowing for sure what impact that will have in 20, 40 or 60 years from now. That slag looks stable, but what happens
    if you get a very unusual rain storm that doesn't move for a week or two (think Houston, TX), combined with an earth quake. That pile of slag might impact your children who would be living in the house by then.


    (The few accidents that
    have occurred lead to a lot more publicity - you never year about all
    the accidents involved in mounting or maintaining wind turbines.) The
    impact to the environment and nature, in the way Norwegians want to see
    and use their nature, would be much less with nuclear power than wind power.

    The accidents are a real possibility, but not the biggest danger. But I was surprised to learn just how probable an accident is. Using the numbers the US comes up with for reactor breech, JUST FROM EARTHQUAKES, factor 100 reactors, 1 in 70,000 chance
    per year (some are worse, much worse, the action limit is 1 in 15,000 I believe) and a 70 year lifetime of the reactor, you get around a 1 in 10 chance of a core breach with the present number of reactors. 1 in 10 is not so small really. Would you play
    Russian roulette with a 10 shooter? Maybe a 100 shooter, or a 1,000 shooter, but a 10 shot revolver? I think not! And that is ONLY from earthquakes!


    I find your numbers hard to believe - a 1 in 10 chance per year of an earthquake-induced reactor breach in the USA would mean a 98.5% chance
    over 40 years.

    Reactor designs have become safer - no one is suggesting building 1970's
    style reactors. It is entirely possible to build nuclear power stations
    that are safe even in the face of significant earthquakes.

    We live with a certain degree of risk all the time. We could be hit be
    a dinosaur-killing meteor, or a gamma ray burst. The Yellowstone
    supervolcano could go off. An Ebola pandemic could break out.

    Yes, nuclear power stations - even Thorium molten salt reactors - pose a
    risk. So do hydroelectric dams, and even wind farms. Yes, there
    unknown long-term impacts - do /you/ know the environmental impact that decaying windmills will have over the next thousand years?

    The one thing we know for sure, is that massive global upheaval from
    climate change is Russian roulette with a single-shot gun if things
    don't change. The other thing we know is that covering the world in
    windmills will not fix it.


    Then there is the stability of the supply. For power generation, you
    want a base constant stable supply, with extra generation when there are
    peaks in the demand.

    Really? That sounds very inefficient to me. How about an energy source that is cheap enough, that it can be over built by a factor of 2 or 3 or 4 and still supply all the energy required when it drops to a quarter of the needed output? Add some
    storage and it's all good!


    Have you heard of a little thing called the law of conservation of
    energy? Not only can energy not be created from nothing, it cannot be destroyed into nothing. A major challenge with windmills and solar
    power is that they sometimes produce too much power than can easily be
    used or transported. Overgeneration can lead to blackouts and other
    problems just as much as undergeneration. Continuous overproduction
    simply cannot work - what do you intend to do with all that extra energy?

    Yes, storage is a big part of the solution - from short-term storage to long-term storage. But you need a /massive/ amount of storage to
    support wind and solar power in places where there can be big variations
    in the weather - like Europe. Batteries can even out the differences in
    supply and demand over a day, but what are you going to do if there is
    little wind for two weeks?


    Wind power is not stable (unless it is very high
    masts out at sea), and goes up and down independently from demand.
    Nuclear power (which is very stable) combined with hydroelectric (which
    we have, and which can be turned up and down quickly as needed) is an
    ideal combination - far better than covering half the country in
    windmills and massive lithium battery arrays.

    If you are going to wish for hydroelectric, then why not wish for low cost batteries?

    That would be great too. But you'd need an absurd amount of batteries
    to support wind and solar power without a stable base supply. (Note
    that solar power in a desert might be considered stable enough, as could
    wind that is far enough off-shore and high enough in the air.)
    Hydroelectric does not react as fast as batteries, and two-way pumped
    storage is not as efficient, but it holds a lot more quantity.

    It's no different. France has managed to build enough hydro and pumped hydro to supply 30% of their needs. I wonder why their fluctuations are so much lower than the rest of the world?

    France has lots of stable continuous nuclear power, and hydroelectric
    that can be controlled reasonably quickly - that's a good combination.

    In the US we can't even use nuclear for 50% of our peak demand. So nuclear is not a solution unless, you add storage. That's essentially what hydro is, the water coming into the lake is stored until needed, because there typically is not enough of it
    to provide power all the time.

    Yes. Different types of power generation have different characteristics
    - some are more efficient, some more polluting, some require more area,
    some require particular geographic or geologic features, some are easily modulated, and so on. Nuclear is stable - you get constant output
    regardless of the weather or other factors, but it takes a very long
    time to raise or lower the output. Hydroelectric is at the other end -
    when you have predictable changes (such as daily fluctuations) most hydroelectric plants can ramp up or down in about 15 minutes or so.
    (The fastest are under a minute.)

    Pumped hydro is literally stored energy from other sources. Or you use batteries or other means of storage. But it needs to be pointed out that a steady base supply has the same poor match to variable demand as intermittent sources.


    I agree - that is what I said. You can't run a grid on nuclear power
    alone. You can't run it on hydroelectric alone (not even Norway has
    enough mountains, rain and dammed up water for its needs any more). You certainly can't run it on wind or solar power that generates randomly
    and independently of demand. You need a combination, including storage.

    Wider grid connections are also a major part of this - if you cover
    enough of the world in your grid, it's likely that it is sunny or windy /somewhere/, and a lot of your fluctuations even out in comparison to
    the total load.

    (Note that pumped hydroelectric requires quite specific geographical
    features to work well, and the charge/discharge efficiency is low. It
    is unlikely that new pumped hydroelectric storage will be used in the
    future - batteries are more efficient.)


    But solar and wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?)
    could well be the right answer for Australia.

    Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds.

    Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is
    significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
    someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these
    problems, that would be good news.

    Poisonous??? You propose nuclear, then knock vanadium flow batteries because of poisons? WTF!!!


    Yes, vanadium is poisonous. How exactly do you think the radioactivity
    and chemical poisonous of nuclear fuels and waste make vanadium
    non-poisonous? All I said was that flow batteries using a less
    expensive and less poisonous liquid would be better.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu Apr 21 16:28:00 2022
    On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
    circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
    turn off from equinox to equinox.
    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
    Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about
    the country I live in?

    This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country
    because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're not.


    After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia
    and solar panels should be as good here as they are there, he then tries
    to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes in this country.

    If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not correct, explain why. It's that simple.

    I'm fine with discussing facts - and correcting people, or being
    corrected myself, as need be. And I'm fine with people having different opinions or thoughts.

    But I'm not keen on being patronised, and having someone on the other
    side of the world try to tell me what things are like /here/ - right
    down to simple clear facts.


    Maybe I used uglier wording than was called for. Maybe "twat" sounds
    worse to you (and possibly Bill) than it does to a Brit - it really is
    not a strong term at all (and nothing even remotely in Phil A's class).
    Maybe I have been hanging around this group too long and lowered my
    standards towards the mean.

    This group never has been a good place for calm and reflected
    conversations. Even the most rational and knowledgeable posters here
    regularly fail to listen to others in their eagerness to make their own
    points - willingness to learn is close to zero, while frustration is high.

    I come and go in this group - maybe it's time to leave for a while.
    Experience shows that pretty much the same people will be saying pretty
    much the same things next time I rejoin.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Apr 21 07:43:18 2022
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
    circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
    turn off from equinox to equinox.
    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
    Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about >> the country I live in?

    This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country
    because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're not.

    After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia
    and solar panels should be as good here as they are there, he then tries
    to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes in this country.

    Because you seemed to be unaware. He was pointing out that most of the country (and most of the people) is where sun does shine and solar cells *are* still effective. If you can't handle a simple conversation...


    If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not correct, explain why. It's that simple.
    I'm fine with discussing facts - and correcting people, or being
    corrected myself, as need be. And I'm fine with people having different opinions or thoughts.

    But I'm not keen on being patronised, and having someone on the other
    side of the world try to tell me what things are like /here/ - right
    down to simple clear facts.

    See! You are being far too emotional to discuss this rationally.


    Maybe I used uglier wording than was called for. Maybe "twat" sounds
    worse to you (and possibly Bill) than it does to a Brit - it really is
    not a strong term at all (and nothing even remotely in Phil A's class). Maybe I have been hanging around this group too long and lowered my standards towards the mean.

    This group never has been a good place for calm and reflected
    conversations. Even the most rational and knowledgeable posters here regularly fail to listen to others in their eagerness to make their own points - willingness to learn is close to zero, while frustration is high.

    I come and go in this group - maybe it's time to leave for a while. Experience shows that pretty much the same people will be saying pretty
    much the same things next time I rejoin.

    Or you could just cool your jets. But you are right about the scenery not changing here. There are no seasons.

    --

    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 Ricky@21:1/5 to David Brown on Thu Apr 21 07:39:35 2022
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:53:38 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 05:42, Ricky wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

    Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since >>>>>>>> the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less >>>>>>>> smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option. >>>>>>>> Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
    has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build >>>>>>>> weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the >>>>>>>> masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam >>>>>>>> engine I hope to build in my backyard won't come for free :D. >>>>>>>
    The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
    the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem
    that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and >>>> have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and >>>> pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over >>>> the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway >>>> it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
    simply because there is not as much sun.

    There's actually more in your summer.
    No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
    have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
    hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
    Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
    steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

    And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
    some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going >> for half the year.
    And wind power works pretty much everywhere.
    It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
    middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
    plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills, >> and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
    of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of >> our hills). And people don't want them there.

    There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
    even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
    sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available.

    Sounds like Norway is pretty screwed. I suggest you limit your population, "one child" policy sounds like a good idea. Free up some space and live like you are in Texas.


    We are one of only about two or three countries in the world that
    actually make a profit, rather than continuously increasing their
    national debt - and we are the only such country you'd want to live in.
    We are in the top ranks for almost any measurement of countries - live expectancy, health care, income, lack of poverty, happiness, clean air,
    lack of corruption, trust in each other, democracy, low crime rates.
    Yeah, we are really screwed.

    If you have the energy capacity of a third world country in a few years, yeah, pretty screwed.


    We are still far from perfect, and there are certain areas where
    people's attitudes need to change. Power generation is one of them - we
    have been too used to cheap, clean power for too long, and most people
    here don't understand how electricity import and export really works.


    (We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
    wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
    Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
    or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
    with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
    electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity
    generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
    but it's hard to convince some people.)

    No one? Not even when they are cold and in the dark? So you think they'd rather see cooling towers or large plumes of coal smoke?


    Do you ever read my posts before jumping to conclusions? Maybe I am too long-winded and you skim over parts.

    LOL! I like the idea of being lectured by someone who often fails to have any idea of what he is responding to.


    It is easy to stop exporting electricity, pay more for it and they will sell it to you instead of importing!


    What a na√Įve fairytale world you live in!

    You said you have to burn fossil fuels because you export too much clean energy and you say I live in a fairytale world? Everything is about the price. Do you produce enough hydropower or not? If not, why not? What limits it?


    Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for >>>> Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).

    You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is quite a bit more expensive than wind power.

    Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as
    disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
    choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway -
    nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death >> and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in >> comparison to other methods, including wind.

    Except that the total cost and the total human impact won't be known for thousands of years.


    We do, however, know that without a massive change to the way we get
    energy, the impact to the earth and humanity within a century or so will make the impact in a thousand years time almost irrelevant.

    Which is irrelevant to the issue of using a potentially even more polluting energy source, just not as immediate.


    The long-term cost of storing nuclear waste is a can we can kick down
    the road - unlike the cost of continued use of fossil fuels at the
    current rate.

    That's my point. You want clean for your children, but you hand off nuclear waste to their children, and grandchildren, and ... with the blithe assumption that they won't have problems with it, thousands of years from now.


    Solar and wind power will help, but it is not a complete solution.

    It won't be if you don't build it or work to make it a solution.


    It's kind of like carving into a hillside to build a home and having to dispose of the waste slag by dumping it in your side yard, not knowing for sure what impact that will have in 20, 40 or 60 years from now. That slag looks stable, but what
    happens if you get a very unusual rain storm that doesn't move for a week or two (think Houston, TX), combined with an earth quake. That pile of slag might impact your children who would be living in the house by then.


    (The few accidents that
    have occurred lead to a lot more publicity - you never year about all
    the accidents involved in mounting or maintaining wind turbines.) The
    impact to the environment and nature, in the way Norwegians want to see >> and use their nature, would be much less with nuclear power than wind power.

    The accidents are a real possibility, but not the biggest danger. But I was surprised to learn just how probable an accident is. Using the numbers the US comes up with for reactor breech, JUST FROM EARTHQUAKES, factor 100 reactors, 1 in 70,000 chance
    per year (some are worse, much worse, the action limit is 1 in 15,000 I believe) and a 70 year lifetime of the reactor, you get around a 1 in 10 chance of a core breach with the present number of reactors. 1 in 10 is not so small really. Would you play
    Russian roulette with a 10 shooter? Maybe a 100 shooter, or a 1,000 shooter, but a 10 shot revolver? I think not! And that is ONLY from earthquakes!


    I find your numbers hard to believe - a 1 in 10 chance per year of an earthquake-induced reactor breach in the USA would mean a 98.5% chance
    over 40 years.

    You need to learn to read better. Try again and this time focus on the math.


    Reactor designs have become safer - no one is suggesting building 1970's style reactors. It is entirely possible to build nuclear power stations
    that are safe even in the face of significant earthquakes.

    Every reactor in the US is evaluated on IT'S risk, not a generic number based on something from the 70's. These numbers were all updated a few years ago, which is one of the reasons why Indian Point was shut down. I think it was deemed right on the
    limit of requiring action. I expect the numbers were fudged a bit. What are the chances it would fall exactly on the limit?

    To give you an idea of the not accounted for risk of many reactors, Indian Point was reevaluated, "The study calculates a 1.5 percent chance that a 7.0 magnitude earthquake could occur within the next 50 years." It was built to withstand a 6.1
    earthquake. The risk of reactor core damage for Indian Point 3 was calculated to be 1:10,000.


    We live with a certain degree of risk all the time. We could be hit be
    a dinosaur-killing meteor, or a gamma ray burst. The Yellowstone supervolcano could go off. An Ebola pandemic could break out.

    Complete cop out of the issue. Pathetic!


    Yes, nuclear power stations - even Thorium molten salt reactors - pose a risk. So do hydroelectric dams, and even wind farms. Yes, there
    unknown long-term impacts - do /you/ know the environmental impact that decaying windmills will have over the next thousand years?

    More copping out and diversion. I guess I had forgotten how bad you are at discussing a topic where you don't have facts to support your emotionally based opinion.


    The one thing we know for sure, is that massive global upheaval from
    climate change is Russian roulette with a single-shot gun if things
    don't change. The other thing we know is that covering the world in windmills will not fix it.

    I agree on the Russian roulette, but your conclusion about wind power is fallacious.


    Then there is the stability of the supply. For power generation, you
    want a base constant stable supply, with extra generation when there are >> peaks in the demand.

    Really? That sounds very inefficient to me. How about an energy source that is cheap enough, that it can be over built by a factor of 2 or 3 or 4 and still supply all the energy required when it drops to a quarter of the needed output? Add some
    storage and it's all good!


    Have you heard of a little thing called the law of conservation of
    energy? Not only can energy not be created from nothing, it cannot be destroyed into nothing. A major challenge with windmills and solar
    power is that they sometimes produce too much power than can easily be
    used or transported. Overgeneration can lead to blackouts and other
    problems just as much as undergeneration. Continuous overproduction
    simply cannot work - what do you intend to do with all that extra energy?

    What???!!! How does over generation produce blackouts? Windmills and solar can always be turned off. Yeah, feather the blades of the wind turbine. Simply turn off the inverter for the solar panels. You're not an engineer, are you?


    Yes, storage is a big part of the solution - from short-term storage to long-term storage. But you need a /massive/ amount of storage to
    support wind and solar power in places where there can be big variations
    in the weather - like Europe. Batteries can even out the differences in supply and demand over a day, but what are you going to do if there is little wind for two weeks?

    I thought had lots of hydro? Why can't batteries supply power for a week or two? Will you lose both solar and wind power for two weeks? Do you actually know anything about this? I expect you two week number is pure speculation. It's like when people
    who don't own BEVs talk about how hard they are to charge. They make up scenarios. The people who drive BEVs, well, they just drive them without a problem.


    Wind power is not stable (unless it is very high
    masts out at sea), and goes up and down independently from demand.
    Nuclear power (which is very stable) combined with hydroelectric (which >> we have, and which can be turned up and down quickly as needed) is an
    ideal combination - far better than covering half the country in
    windmills and massive lithium battery arrays.

    If you are going to wish for hydroelectric, then why not wish for low cost batteries?

    That would be great too. But you'd need an absurd amount of batteries
    to support wind and solar power without a stable base supply. (Note
    that solar power in a desert might be considered stable enough, as could wind that is far enough off-shore and high enough in the air.)
    Hydroelectric does not react as fast as batteries, and two-way pumped storage is not as efficient, but it holds a lot more quantity.

    You are the one doing the wishing. I'm just suggesting a better avenue for your wishing.


    It's no different. France has managed to build enough hydro and pumped hydro to supply 30% of their needs. I wonder why their fluctuations are so much lower than the rest of the world?

    France has lots of stable continuous nuclear power, and hydroelectric
    that can be controlled reasonably quickly - that's a good combination.

    Yes, it was. But now they seem to have significant problems trying to increase their nuclear base. Can they extend their hydropower further? Nuclear is not useful without the hydropower, or pumped hydro, or batteries.


    In the US we can't even use nuclear for 50% of our peak demand. So nuclear is not a solution unless, you add storage. That's essentially what hydro is, the water coming into the lake is stored until needed, because there typically is not enough of it
    to provide power all the time.

    Yes. Different types of power generation have different characteristics
    - some are more efficient, some more polluting, some require more area,
    some require particular geographic or geologic features, some are easily modulated, and so on. Nuclear is stable - you get constant output
    regardless of the weather or other factors, but it takes a very long
    time to raise or lower the output. Hydroelectric is at the other end -
    when you have predictable changes (such as daily fluctuations) most hydroelectric plants can ramp up or down in about 15 minutes or so.
    (The fastest are under a minute.)

    Why are you posting this? We all know that. Are you just trying to sound knowledgeable?


    Pumped hydro is literally stored energy from other sources. Or you use batteries or other means of storage. But it needs to be pointed out that a steady base supply has the same poor match to variable demand as intermittent sources.


    I agree - that is what I said. You can't run a grid on nuclear power
    alone. You can't run it on hydroelectric alone (not even Norway has
    enough mountains, rain and dammed up water for its needs any more). You certainly can't run it on wind or solar power that generates randomly
    and independently of demand. You need a combination, including storage.

    Wider grid connections are also a major part of this - if you cover
    enough of the world in your grid, it's likely that it is sunny or windy /somewhere/, and a lot of your fluctuations even out in comparison to
    the total load.

    (Note that pumped hydroelectric requires quite specific geographical features to work well, and the charge/discharge efficiency is low. It
    is unlikely that new pumped hydroelectric storage will be used in the
    future - batteries are more efficient.)

    Define "low" efficiency. My understanding is it is very efficient (without defining "very").


    But solar and wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?)
    could well be the right answer for Australia.

    Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds. >>>
    Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is
    significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
    someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these
    problems, that would be good news.

    Poisonous??? You propose nuclear, then knock vanadium flow batteries because of poisons? WTF!!!


    Yes, vanadium is poisonous. How exactly do you think the radioactivity
    and chemical poisonous of nuclear fuels and waste make vanadium non-poisonous? All I said was that flow batteries using a less
    expensive and less poisonous liquid would be better.

    Yes, in the context of contrasting it with nuclear power!!! Many aspects of nuclear are both poisonous and radioactive. The best of both worlds!

    --

    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 David Brown on Thu Apr 21 09:02:22 2022
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 12:28:08 AM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
    circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
    turn off from equinox to equinox.
    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
    Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about >> the country I live in?

    This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country
    because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're not.

    After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia
    and solar panels should be as good here as they are there, he then tries
    to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes in this country.

    I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia. For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia, and that area is tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.

    You don't cover the whole country with solar panels to collect solar power - you put up enough to generate the power you need, and you tilt them so the sunlight hits them more or less square on. If you put them up right each solar panel will generate
    much the same amount of power - averaged over the year - in Norway or Australia, but you've got to work harder to get that result in Norway. Sticking them well up the sunny side of steep hills isn't as easy as laying down solar panels in a flat field

    If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not correct, explain why. It's that simple.

    I'm fine with discussing facts - and correcting people, or being
    corrected myself, as need be. And I'm fine with people having different opinions or thoughts.

    Though not as fine as you like to think.

    But I'm not keen on being patronised, and having someone on the other
    side of the world try to tell me what things are like /here/ - right
    down to simple clear facts.

    Sadly, you got "your simple clear facts" slightly wrong, because you didn't think hard enough about what you were saying.

    Maybe I used uglier wording than was called for. Maybe "twat" sounds
    worse to you (and possibly Bill) than it does to a Brit - it really is
    not a strong term at all (and nothing even remotely in Phil A's class). Maybe I have been hanging around this group too long and lowered my standards towards the mean.

    "Twat" is pretty rude. I worked in the UK for 22 years, and used the word from time to time.

    This group never has been a good place for calm and reflective conversations. Even the most rational and knowledgeable posters here regularly fail to listen to others in their eagerness to make their own points - willingness to learn is close to zero, while frustration is high.

    I come and go in this group - maybe it's time to leave for a while. Experience shows that pretty much the same people will be saying pretty
    much the same things next time I rejoin.

    There is useful content here, but not a lot. A certain amount of ritualised squabbling gives people something to do until an interesting technical question shows up.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to Ricky on Thu Apr 21 08:37:31 2022
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:35:49 PM UTC+10, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:28:17 PM UTC+10, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter
    Popoff wrote:
    On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
    circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't turn off from equinox to equinox.
    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
    Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about the country I live in?

    David didn't seem to have digested their implications as well as he might have.

    This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that.
    That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're
    not.

    If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not correct, explain why. It's that simple. >

    It is not uncommon for Bill to be in denial of some fact. He may pull up some obscure paper that doesn't actually say what he claims it says.

    That's Flyguy. I'm fairly sure I don't. When I do get stuff wrong I do admit it, but it doesn't happen all that often. Lot's of people are rather too attached to their own ideas of what constitutes a "fact".

    When he says things that aren't fact, you can call him on it. But calling him a twat just shows you have no argument and you have gotten exposed and are pissed about it (Phil A's main mode of living).

    A local company - Gelion

    https://gelion.com/

    think that Zinc bromine is the answer. I responded to one of their
    job ads - you'd think that a Ph.D. in chemistry and a lot of
    experience with electronics would have whetted their interest, but it didn't. They probably only hire their own graduate students.

    Maybe you talked to them, or perhaps wrote a covering letter. That could have put them off.

    Yes, doubling down! A good move in blackjack, but not so much in the twat domain.

    The cover letter did mention that I was 78 at the time, and it does seem to put people off. I don't see any point in trying to hide it.

    -
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Apr 22 09:40:45 2022
    On 21/04/2022 16:43, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
    circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't >>>>> turn off from equinox to equinox.
    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
    Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about >>>> the country I live in?

    This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country
    because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're not.

    After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia
    and solar panels should be as good here as they are there, he then tries
    to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes in this country.

    Because you seemed to be unaware. He was pointing out that most of the country (and most of the people) is where sun does shine and solar cells *are* still effective. If you can't handle a simple conversation...


    You could only reach that conclusion if you (or he) did not read what I
    wrote, or filled in some gaps with your imaginations. (The scenery does
    not change, as you say - this happens all the time in this group, even
    amongst the rational and logical members. I suspect the popular use of
    the utterly crap google groups interface, and the almost total lack of snipping, is partly to blame.)

    People in Norway /do/ have some solar panels. We even have some on the
    roof of our factory. I never suggested that we don't have them, or that
    they don't work. But they are not remotely as effective here as they
    are in a country or area that has much less average cloud cover, and
    much higher angle of sun.

    In Australia (excluding perhaps some of the rainier parts at the
    coasts), you can use solar power for serious power generation - it is
    reliable, consistent, and you collect a lot of power for the land usage
    and for the panel area.

    In Norway, it can only ever be a small supplement. You make a small
    amount of electricity during summer, at the time you need it least (we
    heat by electricity). Oslo and the main population areas in Norway are certainly below the Arctic Circle, but in the middle of winter they have
    about 6 hours of weak daylight - you get practically nothing from solar
    panels. We only have them at all because Norwegians have a lot of money
    and like to feel "green" - the break-even time for the cost of panels on
    your house roof is about 20 years or so, last I heard.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Fri Apr 22 01:03:38 2022
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:40:54 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 16:43, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
    circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't >>>>> turn off from equinox to equinox.
    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat? >>>> Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about
    the country I live in?

    This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country
    because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're not.

    After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia >> and solar panels should be as good here as they are there, he then tries >> to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes in this country.

    Because you seemed to be unaware. He was pointing out that most of the country (and most of the people) is where sun does shine and solar cells *are* still effective. If you can't handle a simple conversation...


    You could only reach that conclusion if you (or he) did not read what I wrote, or filled in some gaps with your imaginations. (The scenery does
    not change, as you say - this happens all the time in this group, even amongst the rational and logical members. I suspect the popular use of
    the utterly crap google groups interface, and the almost total lack of snipping, is partly to blame.)

    People in Norway /do/ have some solar panels. We even have some on the
    roof of our factory. I never suggested that we don't have them, or that
    they don't work. But they are not remotely as effective here as they
    are in a country or area that has much less average cloud cover, and
    much higher angle of sun.

    It you mount the solar panels so that they are at right angles to average elevation of the sun in the sky, they will work just as well in Norway as Australia.

    There are parts of Australia that are far enough from the coast that they don't see clouds very often, but they are too far from the people who would buy the electricity generated out there to be an attractive place for solar farms.

    In Australia (excluding perhaps some of the rainier parts at the
    coasts), you can use solar power for serious power generation - it is reliable, consistent, and you collect a lot of power for the land usage
    and for the panel area.

    It isn't reliable or consistent - at least not in the short term - and we use the grid to get geographical averaging. Day to night needs pumped storage and grid batteries, not to mention quick-start gas-fired turbine generators, which we will probably
    use less and less as we get more storage built. There are also wind farms.

    In Norway, it can only ever be a small supplement.

    Twaddle.

    You make a small amount of electricity during summer, at the time you need it least (we
    heat by electricity).

    That's a choice, and you deliberately exaggerate the summer-winter difference. You have effectively asserted that power generation stops at the autumn equinox, and doesn't start up again until the spring equinox, which isn't the way it works. It's a
    sinusoid, not a square wave.

    Oslo and the main population areas in Norway are certainly below the Arctic Circle, but in the middle of winter they have about 6 hours of weak daylight - you get practically nothing from solar panels.

    Only if you've laid them flat on a roof that isn't sloping the right way. "Practically" - in this context - is a rhetorical flourish.

    We only have them at all because Norwegians have a lot of money and like to feel "green" - the break-even time for the cost of panels on
    your house roof is about 20 years or so, last I heard.

    That might have been true ten or twenty years ago. Solar panels have got a lot cheaper recently. The kind of people who like nuclear reactors don't keep up to date about the competition .

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From David Brown@21:1/5 to Anthony William Sloman on Fri Apr 22 11:03:18 2022
    On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 12:28:08 AM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the
    Arctic circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but
    sunlight doesn't turn off from equinox to equinox.
    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending
    twat? Are you really trying to tell me the most basic
    geographical facts about the country I live in?

    This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if
    not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly
    insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others.
    Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country because
    that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't
    throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"?
    Because you're not.

    After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as
    Australia and solar panels should be as good here as they are
    there, he then tries to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes
    in this country.

    I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia.
    For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia,

    Surely it is obvious that we were always talking about "per unit area of
    land" ?

    and that area is
    tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.

    You certainly wrote as though you missed that one. It seems you think
    the prime difference between generating solar power in Norway and
    Australia is that you just need to tilt your panel a bit.


    You don't cover the whole country with solar panels to collect solar
    power - you put up enough to generate the power you need, and you
    tilt them so the sunlight hits them more or less square on. If you
    put them up right each solar panel will generate much the same amount
    of power - averaged over the year - in Norway or Australia, but
    you've got to work harder to get that result in Norway. Sticking them
    well up the sunny side of steep hills isn't as easy as laying down
    solar panels in a flat field

    I really don't believe you have thought this through - physically, sociologically, environmentally, geographically or economically.

    You are used to a country that has a lot of wide open spaces. Outside
    of the cities, it is mostly endless plains - and away from the coasts,
    cloud and rain is only occasional. Land space is cheap, flat, and easy
    to build on, and will give you reliable and predictable solar power.
    Obviously you need energy storage for fluctuations over the day and
    night, but not much more than that. And since this would be far from
    people, the sociologically cost would be zero and the environmental cost minimal.

    Norway is not like that. Our flat land is mostly either built on, or
    farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under
    two meters of snow for half the year. Our hills are either grazing
    land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and ice for
    half the year. You can't build solar power of any significance anywhere
    here. You could build a bit on some hills, but the environmental and
    social costs (people here put great social value on relatively
    undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the tourism it brings)
    would be very high compared to the power generated. And again, they'd
    be covered in snow half the year.

    Even if you were to ignore the economic costs, and ignore all
    environmental costs, and bureaucracy, and landowners' rights, and found
    a south-facing hillside, there are still big issues. One thing about a
    hilly and mountainous landscape is that hills have other hills nearby -
    with a low-lying sun, you have shadow during a lot of the theoretical
    daylight. (There is a famous town in central Norway, Rujkan, which is
    far south of the Arctic Circle but which has no direct sunlight for
    almost exactly half the year due the surrounding mountains.) Even when
    there is direct sunlight, without shadows, and without much cloud (and
    we have a /lot/ of cloud), the sun moves across the sky. For solar
    panels on flat ground near the tropics, you can tilt the panels for
    optimal capture - on a hillside in the far north, you'd need to move the
    panels around the hill. Clearly that is impossible - so you have to
    accept that they will generate only a small fraction of the total power
    you'd get in other places.


    If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you
    here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not
    correct, explain why. It's that simple.

    I'm fine with discussing facts - and correcting people, or being
    corrected myself, as need be. And I'm fine with people having
    different opinions or thoughts.

    Though not as fine as you like to think.

    Perhaps - but the same applies to pretty much everyone here.


    But I'm not keen on being patronised, and having someone on the
    other side of the world try to tell me what things are like /here/
    - right down to simple clear facts.

    Sadly, you got "your simple clear facts" slightly wrong, because you
    didn't think hard enough about what you were saying.

    Maybe I used uglier wording than was called for. Maybe "twat"
    sounds worse to you (and possibly Bill) than it does to a Brit - it
    really is not a strong term at all (and nothing even remotely in
    Phil A's class). Maybe I have been hanging around this group too
    long and lowered my standards towards the mean.

    "Twat" is pretty rude. I worked in the UK for 22 years, and used the
    word from time to time.

    Then perhaps I need to be more specific - to a /Scot/, it is not a
    strong term. (I would not have used that word if I had thought it would
    be interpreted as being so rude as it apparently has been.)


    This group never has been a good place for calm and reflective
    conversations. Even the most rational and knowledgeable posters
    here regularly fail to listen to others in their eagerness to make
    their own points - willingness to learn is close to zero, while
    frustration is high.

    I come and go in this group - maybe it's time to leave for a
    while. Experience shows that pretty much the same people will be
    saying pretty much the same things next time I rejoin.

    There is useful content here, but not a lot. A certain amount of
    ritualised squabbling gives people something to do until an
    interesting technical question shows up.


    Agreed. And I think it is important to view it as "ritualised
    squabbling", rather than anything personal.

    Unfortunately, it is sometimes too easy to go overboard, either in what
    we write, or how we interpret what we read.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Chris Jones@21:1/5 to Jeroen Belleman on Fri Apr 22 21:20:09 2022
    On 20/04/2022 05:55, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
    On 2022-04-19 21:16, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
    tirsdag den 19. april 2022 kl. 21.04.07 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
    [...]

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


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


    The reason it's so hard to make new ones these days is the crippling regulatory environment. My work also involves radioactive stuff.
    We're so bogged down it's hard to get anything done at all.

    Of course, it's all for our own and the public's safety. You can't
    criticize that or you'll be deemed irresponsible.

    It's almost funny. I *know* we all get a daily dose of ~10uSv, just
    from the ordinary environment, but the extra few hundred nSv I
    occasionally get from working on slightly radioactive stuff seems
    to justify lots of extra rules, lots of paperwork, regular
    inspections, special labs and protective gear. Granted, those are
    sometimes necessary, but sheesh, a bit of common sense would be
    welcome. A few uSv extra on occasion aren't going to make a
    difference!


    Yes, it would take some effort to incorporate common sense into the
    rules, and the people who come up with the rules have no incentive to do
    that, as the cost of complying with the rules is not their problem.

    Where I work, sources of ionising radiation (including UV) have to be registered and licensed with the country's nuclear regulator. It not
    always required by law, but some people at the institution have made it
    our policy to always do it, and have the job of making us do it, and I
    guess they would not want to be out of a job. So, we have a solar
    simulator which produces radiation very precisely identical to sunlight, (therefore including some UV) and a lot of paperwork explaining how hard
    we will try not to expose ourselves to this radiation, and we mustn't
    lose or sell or move the device without the correct permission. On the
    other hand, we can open the window and expose ourselves to the same
    spectrum and intensity from the real sun (weather permitting) without
    any paperwork, and they even let us go outside.

    I think the solution is to subcontract all of the experimental work to
    an institution in another country.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to David Brown on Fri Apr 22 09:14:34 2022
    On 4/22/2022 5:03 AM, David Brown wrote:

    Norway is not like that.  Our flat land is mostly either built on, or farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under
    two meters of snow for half the year.  Our hills are either grazing
    land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and ice for
    half the year.  You can't build solar power of any significance anywhere here.  You could build a bit on some hills, but the environmental and
    social costs (people here put great social value on relatively
    undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the tourism it brings)

    Yeah, Norway = lil racist country full of vicious bigots who love
    "nature" it's kinda like the United States in that regard, it's great if
    you're rich & white but sucks shit if you're anyone else you'll never be
    able to find housing you can afford or get anywhere in life.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Apr 22 09:31:42 2022
    On 4/22/2022 9:14 AM, bitrex wrote:
    On 4/22/2022 5:03 AM, David Brown wrote:

    Norway is not like that.  Our flat land is mostly either built on, or
    farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under
    two meters of snow for half the year.  Our hills are either grazing
    land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and ice for
    half the year.  You can't build solar power of any significance
    anywhere here.  You could build a bit on some hills, but the
    environmental and social costs (people here put great social value on
    relatively undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the
    tourism it brings)

    Yeah, Norway = lil racist country full of vicious bigots who love
    "nature" it's kinda like the United States in that regard, it's great if you're rich & white but sucks shit if you're anyone else you'll never be
    able to find housing you can afford or get anywhere in life.

    Norway deports Syrian refugees to Russia:

    <https://youtu.be/Llk8neba1jo>

    Norway prepared to accept 100,000 Ukraine refugees:

    <https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/norway-prepares-to-receive-over-100000-refugees-from-ukraine/>

    lol Norwegian men must be hoping for some cheap dates with broke
    Ukrainian blondes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to David Brown on Fri Apr 22 06:39:02 2022
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:03:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 12:28:08 AM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown
    wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the
    Arctic circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but
    sunlight doesn't turn off from equinox to equinox.
    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending
    twat? Are you really trying to tell me the most basic
    geographical facts about the country I live in?

    This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if
    not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly
    insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others.
    Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country because
    that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't
    throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"?
    Because you're not.

    After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as
    Australia and solar panels should be as good here as they are
    there, he then tries to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes
    in this country.

    I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia.
    For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia,
    Surely it is obvious that we were always talking about "per unit area of land" ?

    That is a silly distinction. Land is the least expensive part of solar farms. Don't tell me land is so valuable for farming that you can't use it for solar farms. At your latitude you can put solar on hills that otherwise would not be very suitable
    for farming.


    and that area is
    tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.
    You certainly wrote as though you missed that one. It seems you think
    the prime difference between generating solar power in Norway and
    Australia is that you just need to tilt your panel a bit.

    You don't cover the whole country with solar panels to collect solar
    power - you put up enough to generate the power you need, and you
    tilt them so the sunlight hits them more or less square on. If you
    put them up right each solar panel will generate much the same amount
    of power - averaged over the year - in Norway or Australia, but
    you've got to work harder to get that result in Norway. Sticking them
    well up the sunny side of steep hills isn't as easy as laying down
    solar panels in a flat field
    I really don't believe you have thought this through - physically, sociologically, environmentally, geographically or economically.

    I like that, "sociologically". Lol What are the negative sociological impacts of solar farms in Norway? You've already said people put up solar panels to "feel good" about it.


    You are used to a country that has a lot of wide open spaces. Outside
    of the cities, it is mostly endless plains - and away from the coasts,
    cloud and rain is only occasional. Land space is cheap, flat, and easy
    to build on, and will give you reliable and predictable solar power. Obviously you need energy storage for fluctuations over the day and
    night, but not much more than that. And since this would be far from
    people, the sociologically cost would be zero and the environmental cost minimal.

    Norway is not like that. Our flat land is mostly either built on, or farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under
    two meters of snow for half the year. Our hills are either grazing
    land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and ice for
    half the year. You can't build solar power of any significance anywhere here.

    I have no reason to believe that is remotely accurate. Land to support solar panels only needs to be land, solid and stable. There is always lots of that in any country. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


    You could build a bit on some hills, but the environmental and
    social costs (people here put great social value on relatively
    undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the tourism it brings) would be very high compared to the power generated. And again, they'd
    be covered in snow half the year.

    Not if they are nearly vertical. Snow tends to not stick on things that are steeply sloped. As to the day length, I've read they are using solar panels as heat sinks for powering thermoelectric generators at night! That would be interesting to see how
    well that works in the North.


    Even if you were to ignore the economic costs, and ignore all
    environmental costs, and bureaucracy, and landowners' rights, and found
    a south-facing hillside, there are still big issues. One thing about a
    hilly and mountainous landscape is that hills have other hills nearby -
    with a low-lying sun, you have shadow during a lot of the theoretical daylight. (There is a famous town in central Norway, Rujkan, which is
    far south of the Arctic Circle but which has no direct sunlight for
    almost exactly half the year due the surrounding mountains.) Even when
    there is direct sunlight, without shadows, and without much cloud (and
    we have a /lot/ of cloud), the sun moves across the sky. For solar
    panels on flat ground near the tropics, you can tilt the panels for
    optimal capture - on a hillside in the far north, you'd need to move the panels around the hill. Clearly that is impossible - so you have to
    accept that they will generate only a small fraction of the total power you'd get in other places.

    I can't believe you are so poorly equipped to consider the geometry of the situation.

    Whatever. Clearly there is no point to discussing this further. Enjoy.

    --

    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 David Brown@21:1/5 to bitrex on Fri Apr 22 15:46:12 2022
    On 22/04/2022 15:14, bitrex wrote:
    On 4/22/2022 5:03 AM, David Brown wrote:

    Norway is not like that.  Our flat land is mostly either built on, or
    farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under
    two meters of snow for half the year.  Our hills are either grazing
    land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and ice for
    half the year.  You can't build solar power of any significance
    anywhere here.  You could build a bit on some hills, but the
    environmental and social costs (people here put great social value on
    relatively undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the
    tourism it brings)

    Yeah, Norway = lil racist country full of vicious bigots who love
    "nature" it's kinda like the United States in that regard, it's great if you're rich & white but sucks shit if you're anyone else you'll never be
    able to find housing you can afford or get anywhere in life.

    What a strange and distorted viewpoint you have picked up from somewhere.

    Some of the political parties are rather keen on the "help refugees
    where they are" line. And there certainly some of the distinctions
    between handling of refugees can appear racist (and some of them, for
    some people at least, /are/ racist). But the reality of the current
    situation in Ukraine is actually significantly different from that in
    Syria, and the refugee situation is significantly different.

    I can't deny that there are racists in Norway, and other kinds of
    bigots. But I certainly /can/ deny that the country is "full" of them.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ricky@21:1/5 to David Brown on Fri Apr 22 07:19:11 2022
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:40:54 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

    In Norway, it can only ever be a small supplement. You make a small
    amount of electricity during summer, at the time you need it least (we
    heat by electricity). Oslo and the main population areas in Norway are certainly below the Arctic Circle, but in the middle of winter they have about 6 hours of weak daylight - you get practically nothing from solar panels. We only have them at all because Norwegians have a lot of money
    and like to feel "green" - the break-even time for the cost of panels on
    your house roof is about 20 years or so, last I heard.

    https://teknologiradet.no/en/the-solar-revolution-and-what-it-can-mean-for-norway/

    It seems not everyone shares your pessimism.

    --

    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 bitrex@21:1/5 to David Brown on Fri Apr 22 10:26:28 2022
    On 4/22/2022 9:46 AM, David Brown wrote:
    On 22/04/2022 15:14, bitrex wrote:
    On 4/22/2022 5:03 AM, David Brown wrote:

    Norway is not like that.  Our flat land is mostly either built on, or
    farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and
    under two meters of snow for half the year.  Our hills are either
    grazing land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and
    ice for half the year.  You can't build solar power of any
    significance anywhere here.  You could build a bit on some hills, but
    the environmental and social costs (people here put great social
    value on relatively undisturbed nature - and great economic value on
    the tourism it brings)

    Yeah, Norway = lil racist country full of vicious bigots who love
    "nature" it's kinda like the United States in that regard, it's great
    if you're rich & white but sucks shit if you're anyone else you'll
    never be able to find housing you can afford or get anywhere in life.

    What a strange and distorted viewpoint you have picked up from somewhere.

    Some of the political parties are rather keen on the "help refugees
    where they are" line.  And there certainly some of the distinctions
    between handling of refugees can appear racist (and some of them, for
    some people at least, /are/ racist).  But the reality of the current situation in Ukraine is actually significantly different from that in
    Syria, and the refugee situation is significantly different.

    I can't deny that there are racists in Norway, and other kinds of
    bigots.  But I certainly /can/ deny that the country is "full" of them.


    Oh okay. That's kinder to Norway than I would've expected, but I don't
    believe you were born there? Sometimes I think ex pats tend to see their
    new digs with rose-tinted glasses.

    I've lived in the USA my whole life and I'll tell you straightforwardly
    what you've heard is pretty much true it's full of bigots and assholes, lol

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to David Brown on Fri Apr 22 08:02:05 2022
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:03:26 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 12:28:08 AM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
    On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the
    Arctic circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but
    sunlight doesn't turn off from equinox to equinox.
    Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending
    twat? Are you really trying to tell me the most basic
    geographical facts about the country I live in?

    This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if
    not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly
    insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others.
    Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country because
    that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't
    throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"?
    Because you're not.

    After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as
    Australia and solar panels should be as good here as they are
    there, he then tries to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes
    in this country.

    I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia.

    For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia,
    Surely it is obvious that we were always talking about "per unit area of land" ?

    You invented what you claimed I'd said, so you can scarcely bleat about that.

    and that area is tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.

    You certainly wrote as though you missed that one.

    I didn't.

    <start of quote>

    "> >> But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at
    a much steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

    It's the same radiation source. The angle doesn't make any difference
    to the amount of light hitting a panel that is pointed at the sun.
    The light does go through a thicker layer of atmosphere, but that atmosphere is mostly transparent at the relevant wavelengths. "

    <end of quote>

    It seems you think the prime difference between generating solar power in Norway and Australia is that you just need to tilt your panel a bit.

    Quite a bit, and you want to put them on steep south facing hills, so they don't shade each other too much, and a fair way up the hill so the next hill doesn't shade them too much.

    It's all extra work, but the solar panels you can manage to put up should generate much the same power - over the year - as the same panels in Australia, You won't have as many places to put them, but you don't have to cover the whole country in solar
    panels to get a useful amount of power.

    You don't cover the whole country with solar panels to collect solar power - you put up enough to generate the power you need, and you tilt them so the sunlight hits them more or less square on. If you put them up right each solar panel will
    generate much the same amount of power - averaged over the year - in Norway or Australia, but you've got to work harder to get that result in Norway. Sticking them well up the sunny side of steep hills isn't as easy as laying down solar panels in a
    flat field.

    I really don't believe you have thought this through - physically, sociologically, environmentally, geographically or economically.

    You are used to a country that has a lot of wide open spaces. Outside
    of the cities, it is mostly endless plains - and away from the coasts,
    cloud and rain is only occasional.

    I grew up in Tasmania, which isn't heavy on endless plains, and while the mainland has quite a lot of flat dry plains, the places where people actually live have hills, clouds and rain.

    Land space is cheap, flat, and easy to build on, and will give you reliable and predictable solar power.

    There is quite a lot of that, but it's a long way from the centres of the population who will buy the solar power.

    Obviously you need energy storage for fluctuations over the day and night, but not much more than that.

    Dream on. The local weather bureau is forecasting an overcast week. Any solar farm will be running at about half power.

    And since this would be far from people, the sociological cost would be zero and the environmental cost minimal.

    I don't know anything about Norway but you know everything about Australia? Any solar farms that were far away from people would hard and expensive to maintain, and the transmission cost goes up.
    About half my electricity bill pays for the transmission network, rather than the cost of generating the power, so line length matters. This hasn't stopped people planning huge solar farms on the north coast of Australia to generate electricity that
    they'd ship to Singapore over a very long undersea cable (not even superconducting - the people involved have some credibility) but is isn't going to be all that cheap.

    Norway is not like that. Our flat land is mostly either built on, or farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under two meters of snow for half the year. Our hills are either grazing land, forest, or mountains that again are
    covered in snow and ice for half the year. You can't build solar power of any significance anywhere here.

    Which is to say nobody has yet.

    You could build a bit on some hills, but the environmental and social costs (people here put great social value on relatively undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the tourism it brings)
    would be very high compared to the power generated.

    Australia made a lot of money out of tourists until Covid-19 made it too risky. Most hills are bit too remote to sell as eye-candy, even in Norway

    And again, they'd be covered in snow half the year.

    Like the roads?

    Even if you were to ignore the economic costs, and ignore all environmental costs, and bureaucracy, and landowners' rights, and found a south-facing hillside, there are still big issues. One thing about a hilly and mountainous landscape is that hills
    have other hills nearby - with a low-lying sun, you have shadow during a lot of the theoretical daylight. (There is a famous town in central Norway, Rujkan, which is far south of the Arctic Circle but which has no direct sunlight for almost exactly
    half the year due the surrounding mountains.)

    So don't put solar panels there.

    Even when there is direct sunlight, without shadows, and without much cloud (and we have a /lot/ of cloud), the sun moves across the sky.

    Just like pretty much everywhere else. If you get far enough inland, al the water has mostly fallen out of the air before it gets to you, and you don't get much rain or cloud, but hardly anybody lives there because you can't grow your own food, and
    getting drinking water becomes a problem,

    For solar panels on flat ground near the tropics, you can tilt the panels for optimal capture - on a hillside in the far north, you'd need to move the panels around the hill.

    Twaddle. You can only use the south-facing aspect of the hill, but you aren't under any obligation to cover the whole hill solar panels. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west in the tropics too.

    Clearly that is impossible - so you have to accept that they will generate only a small fraction of the total power you'd get in other places.

    You might not put up as many, but the ones that were worth putting up would generate the same amount of power - more in summer when the sun stays up for longer than it does in tropics, if less in winter when the daylight hours get progressively shorter.

    If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not correct, explain why. It's that simple.

    I'm fine with discussing facts - and correcting people, or being corrected myself, as need be. And I'm fine with people having different opinions or thoughts.

    Though not as fine as you like to think.

    Perhaps - but the same applies to pretty much everyone here.

    To varying extents.

    But I'm not keen on being patronised, and having someone on the other side of the world try to tell me what things are like /here/ - right down to simple clear facts.

    Sadly, you got "your simple clear facts" slightly wrong, because you didn't think hard enough about what you were saying.

    Maybe I used uglier wording than was called for. Maybe "twat"
    sounds worse to you (and possibly Bill) than it does to a Brit - it
    really is not a strong term at all (and nothing even remotely in
    Phil A's class). Maybe I have been hanging around this group too
    long and lowered my standards towards the mean.

    "Twat" is pretty rude. I worked in the UK for 22 years, and used the word from time to time.

    Then perhaps I need to be more specific - to a /Scot/, it is not a strong term. (I would not have used that word if I had thought it would be interpreted as being so rude as it apparently has been.)

    This group never has been a good place for calm and reflective
    conversations. Even the most rational and knowledgeable posters
    here regularly fail to listen to others in their eagerness to make
    their own points - willingness to learn is close to zero, while
    frustration is high.

    I come and go in this group - maybe it's time to leave for a
    while. Experience shows that pretty much the same people will be
    saying pretty much the same things next time I rejoin.

    There is useful content here, but not a lot. A certain amount of ritualised squabbling gives people something to do until an
    interesting technical question shows up.

    Agreed. And I think it is important to view it as "ritualised squabbling", rather than anything personal.

    Unfortunately, it is sometimes too easy to go overboard, either in what we write, or how we interpret what we read.

    It happens.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to corvid on Fri Apr 22 11:02:26 2022
    On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:32:43 -0700, corvid <bl@ckb.ird> wrote:

    On 4/19/22 16:53, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

    A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.

    Is it legal to own an air rifle?

    I guess he isn't cruel like you.

    Some people just like to kill things. I suspect it's the genetic
    hunter instinct.

    Mo won't kill a bug in the house. She traps them and sets them free
    outdoors. Mosquitoes excepted.




    --

    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 corvid@21:1/5 to Tom Del Rosso on Fri Apr 22 10:32:43 2022
    On 4/19/22 16:53, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

    A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.

    Is it legal to own an air rifle?

    I guess he isn't cruel like you.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From bitrex@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Apr 22 17:13:11 2022
    On 4/22/2022 10:19 AM, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:40:54 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:

    In Norway, it can only ever be a small supplement. You make a small
    amount of electricity during summer, at the time you need it least (we
    heat by electricity). Oslo and the main population areas in Norway are
    certainly below the Arctic Circle, but in the middle of winter they have
    about 6 hours of weak daylight - you get practically nothing from solar
    panels. We only have them at all because Norwegians have a lot of money
    and like to feel "green" - the break-even time for the cost of panels on
    your house roof is about 20 years or so, last I heard.

    https://teknologiradet.no/en/the-solar-revolution-and-what-it-can-mean-for-norway/

    It seems not everyone shares your pessimism.


    Maine seems okay with expanding solar energy. It's actually pretty sunny
    there on average in the wintertime (November and December in particular
    in New England can often be pretty dull months weather-wise, where high pressure system gets locked in and it's just cold with average temps in
    the 40s or 30s for weeks at a time), and colder weather means higher
    efficiency for the panels, despite at the winter solstice northern Maine doesn't get much more than 7 hours of daylight.

    Is David Brown even a real Norwegian name? I want the opinion of an Olaf Svjerginborginjergen on the topic

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to Ricky on Fri Apr 22 19:53:44 2022
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 6:39:08 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:03:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia.
    For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia,
    Surely it is obvious that we were always talking about "per unit area of land" ?
    That is a silly distinction. Land is the least expensive part of solar farms. Don't tell me land is so valuable for farming that you can't use it for solar farms. At your latitude you can put solar on hills that otherwise would not be very suitable for
    farming.
    and that area is
    tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.

    You certainly wrote as though you missed that one. It seems you think
    the prime difference between generating solar power in Norway and Australia is that you just need to tilt your panel a bit.

    Huh? Parts of Norway have midnight sun in summer, and zero daylight
    hours in winter. Tilt the panel to point at the sun, and it's pointing
    at dirt, in darkness.

    And when the sun is near the horizon, a 1 square meter aimed solar panel shades a kilometer or so behind it. You don't get much benefit per acre that way.

    You are used to a country that has a lot of wide open spaces. Outside
    of the cities, it is mostly endless plains - and away from the coasts, cloud and rain is only occasional. Land space is cheap, flat, and easy
    to build on, and will give you reliable and predictable solar power. Obviously you need energy storage for fluctuations over the day and
    night, but not much more than that. And since this would be far from people, the sociologically cost would be zero and the environmental cost minimal.

    Norway is not like that.... You can't build solar power of any significance anywhere
    here.

    I have no reason to believe that is remotely accurate.

    Geometry suggests it to be true. Examine a globe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 22 20:43:28 2022
    On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 12:53:47 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 6:39:08 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:03:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia.
    For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia, and that area is tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.

    Surely it is obvious that we were always talking about "per unit area of land" ?

    That is a silly distinction. Land is the least expensive part of solar farms. Don't tell me land is so valuable for farming that you can't use it for solar farms. At your latitude you can put solar on hills that otherwise would not be very suitable
    for farming.

    You certainly wrote as though you missed that one. It seems you think the prime difference between generating solar power in Norway and Australia is that you just need to tilt your panel a bit.

    Huh? Parts of Norway have midnight sun in summer, and zero daylight hours in winter.

    Bit of it are above the Arctic circle. The bulk of the country isn't - quite.

    Tilt the panel to point at the sun, and it's pointing at dirt, in darkness.

    in the middle of winter.

    And when the sun is near the horizon, a 1 square meter aimed solar panel shades a kilometer or so behind it.

    That's always true when the Sun is near the horizon, which happens twice a day wherever you are.

    In Norway, that can be for a lot of the day, so you'd put your solar panels on on the sunny sides of the steepest hill you could find.

    You don't get much benefit per acre that way.

    More if you pick your acres carefully, on ground that isn't flat.

    <snipped patronising advice about some parts of Australia - mostly the bits where ther population density is really low>

    Norway is not like that.... You can't build solar power of any significance anywhere here.

    I have no reason to believe that is remotely accurate.

    Geometry suggests it to be true. Examine a globe.

    Applying geometric arguments based on a smooth globe doesn't get good results in hilly regions - which do seem to show up in Norway.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From whit3rd@21:1/5 to bill....@ieee.org on Sat Apr 23 02:01:12 2022
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 8:43:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 12:53:47 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 6:39:08 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:03:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia. For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia, and that area is tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.

    Parts of Norway have midnight sun in summer, and zero daylight hours in winter.
    Bit of it are above the Arctic circle. The bulk of the country isn't - quite.
    Tilt the panel to point at the sun, and it's pointing at dirt, in darkness.

    in the middle of winter.

    And when the sun is near the horizon, a 1 square meter aimed solar panel shades a kilometer or so behind it.
    That's always true when the Sun is near the horizon, which happens twice a day wherever you are.

    Yeah, but let's consider 63 degrees north (Alesund), about mid-Norway and well below the arctic circle.
    At winter solstice, the maximum the sun rises above the horizon there is 3.5 degrees.

    From two weeks before winter solstice, to two weeks after, it rises above the horizon by
    a maximum (at noon) under 3.6 degrees...

    In Norway, that can be for a lot of the day, so you'd put your solar panels on on the sunny sides of the steepest hill you could find.

    A lot of the day is right. Norway gets more energy using their hills for hydroelectric power than for photovoltaics.
    Acres of ocean illuminated by sunlight really IS a cost-effective collector, even at high latitudes.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 23 04:36:16 2022
    On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 7:01:16 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 8:43:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
    On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 12:53:47 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 6:39:08 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
    On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:03:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
    On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

    I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia. For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia, and that area is tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.

    Parts of Norway have midnight sun in summer, and zero daylight hours in winter.
    Bit of it are above the Arctic circle. The bulk of the country isn't - quite.
    Tilt the panel to point at the sun, and it's pointing at dirt, in darkness.

    in the middle of winter.

    And when the sun is near the horizon, a 1 square meter aimed solar panel shades a kilometer or so behind it.
    That's always true when the Sun is near the horizon, which happens twice a day wherever you are.

    Yeah, but let's consider 63 degrees north (Alesund), about mid-Norway and well below the arctic circle.
    At winter solstice, the maximum the sun rises above the horizon there is 3.5 degrees.

    From two weeks before winter solstice, to two weeks after, it rises above the horizon by
    a maximum (at noon) under 3.6 degrees...

    In Norway, that can be for a lot of the day, so you'd put your solar panels on on the sunny sides of the steepest hill you could find.
    A lot of the day is right. Norway gets more energy using their hills for hydroelectric power than for photovoltaics.

    There's no conflict between using hills to collect rain and to support solar panels.

    Acres of ocean illuminated by sunlight really IS a cost-effective collector, even at high latitudes.

    What helps even more is the Gulf Stream, which ships warm water up from the tropics to the Norwegian coast. A lot of that solar energy got collected on the way to Norway.

    Alaska doesn't seem to do as well.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Sun Apr 24 02:31:05 2022
    John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:32:43 -0700, corvid <bl@ckb.ird> wrote:

    On 4/19/22 16:53, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

    A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.

    Is it legal to own an air rifle?

    I guess he isn't cruel like you.

    Some people just like to kill things. I suspect it's the genetic
    hunter instinct.

    Mo won't kill a bug in the house. She traps them and sets them free
    outdoors. Mosquitoes excepted.

    I meant to suggest that you can eat the turkey. In rural areas it would
    be seen that way, and not cruel.




    --
    Defund the Thought Police

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-dom on Sun Apr 24 07:29:38 2022
    On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 02:31:05 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

    John Larkin wrote:
    On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:32:43 -0700, corvid <bl@ckb.ird> wrote:

    On 4/19/22 16:53, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
    jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

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

    A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.

    Is it legal to own an air rifle?

    I guess he isn't cruel like you.

    Some people just like to kill things. I suspect it's the genetic
    hunter instinct.

    Mo won't kill a bug in the house. She traps them and sets them free
    outdoors. Mosquitoes excepted.

    I meant to suggest that you can eat the turkey. In rural areas it would
    be seen that way, and not cruel.

    That turkey was a block from the Canyon Market and half a mile from
    Safeway, hardly a rural food desert.

    Mo makes great turkey meatballs, but we buy ground turkey.



    --

    I yam what I yam - Popeye

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From none) (albert@21:1/5 to david.brown@hesbynett.no on Tue Apr 26 12:55:37 2022
    In article <t3p1p8$rlk$1@dont-email.me>,
    David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
    On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
    On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote: >>>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
    On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
    On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:

    <snip>

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

    The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build >>>>>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem >>>>>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.) >>>>>>
    Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/, >>>>>> while we also work on short term solutions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels. >>>>
    Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
    have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
    pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
    the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
    it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
    simply because there is not as much sun.

    There's actually more in your summer.

    No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
    have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
    hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
    Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
    steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

    And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
    some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going
    for half the year.

    And wind power works pretty much everywhere.

    It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
    middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
    plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills,
    and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
    of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of
    our hills). And people don't want them there.

    There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
    even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
    sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available.

    (We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
    wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
    Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
    or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
    with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
    electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity >generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
    but it's hard to convince some people.)


    Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
    Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).

    You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is
    quite a bit more expensive than wind power.


    Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as
    disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
    choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway - >nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death
    and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in >comparison to other methods, including wind. (The few accidents that
    have occurred lead to a lot more publicity - you never year about all
    the accidents involved in mounting or maintaining wind turbines.) The
    impact to the environment and nature, in the way Norwegians want to see
    and use their nature, would be much less with nuclear power than wind power.

    Then there is the stability of the supply. For power generation, you
    want a base constant stable supply, with extra generation when there are >peaks in the demand. Wind power is not stable (unless it is very high
    masts out at sea), and goes up and down independently from demand.
    Nuclear power (which is very stable) combined with hydroelectric (which
    we have, and which can be turned up and down quickly as needed) is an
    ideal combination - far better than covering half the country in
    windmills and massive lithium battery arrays.

    But solar and wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe
    sodium ion batteries?)
    could well be the right answer for Australia.

    Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds.


    Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is >significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
    someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these >problems, that would be good news.

    Beryllium is proposed to use in modern reactor design.
    It is likewise extremely toxic, not on a par with lead or cadmium.

    Groetjes Albert
    --
    "in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
    alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
    die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
    albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From none) (albert@21:1/5 to wwm@wwmartin.net on Tue Apr 26 13:13:40 2022
    In article <t3n22a$5dq$2@dont-email.me>, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:
    On 4/19/22 10:47, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
    On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
    wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


    Sure enough, but I find it entirely believable that religion is
    used to "inspire" soldiers to fight.

    Groetjes Albert
    --
    "in our communism country Viet Nam, people are forced to be
    alive and in the western country like US, people are free to
    die from Covid 19 lol" duc ha
    albert@spe&ar&c.xs4all.nl &=n http://home.hccnet.nl/a.w.m.van.der.horst

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phil Hobbs@21:1/5 to albert on Tue Apr 26 10:20:07 2022
    albert wrote:

    Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds.


    Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is
    significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
    someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these
    problems, that would be good news.

    Beryllium is proposed to use in modern reactor design.
    It is likewise extremely toxic, not on a par with lead or cadmium.


    Heavy metal ions have the very comforting feature that they bind
    strongly to clay minerals, and so don't go anywhere in ground water.
    The Oklo natural reactor in Gabon went critical (iirc) 1.5E9 years ago,
    and its fission products have travelled about a mile in that time.

    Dunno about Be.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    --
    Dr Philip C D Hobbs
    Principal Consultant
    ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
    Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
    Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

    http://electrooptical.net
    http://hobbs-eo.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com@21:1/5 to pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical. on Tue Apr 26 09:03:26 2022
    On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:20:07 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    albert wrote:

    Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds. >>>>

    Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is
    significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
    someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these
    problems, that would be good news.

    Beryllium is proposed to use in modern reactor design.
    It is likewise extremely toxic, not on a par with lead or cadmium.


    Heavy metal ions have the very comforting feature that they bind
    strongly to clay minerals, and so don't go anywhere in ground water.
    The Oklo natural reactor in Gabon went critical (iirc) 1.5E9 years ago,
    and its fission products have travelled about a mile in that time.

    Dunno about Be.

    Cheers

    Phil Hobbs

    BeO is an even better heat conductor than AlN, but is deprecated
    because its dust may be toxic. That's not a serious real-world issue.

    I visited a test site (DHART, a giant linear-induction accelerator
    x-ray machine) at Los Alamos. There were Be bits everywhere so we had
    to wear booties and stuff to go outside.



    --

    Anybody can count to one.

    - Robert Widlar

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Anthony William Sloman@21:1/5 to jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com on Tue Apr 26 20:54:58 2022
    On Wednesday, April 27, 2022 at 2:03:37 AM UTC+10, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
    On Tue, 26 Apr 2022 10:20:07 -0400, Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamM...@electrooptical.net> wrote:

    albert wrote:

    Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds. >>>>

    Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is
    significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
    someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these
    problems, that would be good news.

    Beryllium is proposed to use in modern reactor design.
    It is likewise extremely toxic, not on a par with lead or cadmium.


    Heavy metal ions have the very comforting feature that they bind
    strongly to clay minerals, and so don't go anywhere in ground water.
    The Oklo natural reactor in Gabon went critical (iirc) 1.5E9 years ago, >and its fission products have travelled about a mile in that time.

    Dunno about Be.

    BeO is an even better heat conductor than AlN, but is deprecated because its dust may be toxic. That's not a serious real-world issue.

    Beryllia dust is seriously toxic. You've got to screw up to spread it around - beryllia is about as tough as alumina - but if you do you can kill people. slowly and nastily. That is a serious real-world issue even if John Larkin skipped the relevant
    chemistry lecture. Very fine silica and asbestos dusts present the same kinds of hazards.

    https://materion.com/-/media/files/corporate/besafetyfacts/sf300-potentialhealtheffectsfromexposuretobeo.pdf

    I visited a test site (DHART, a giant linear-induction accelerator x-ray machine) at Los Alamos. There were Be bits everywhere so we had to wear booties and stuff to go outside.

    --
    Bill Sloman, Sydney

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)