GauchoGreg

Members
  • Content Count

    5,292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by GauchoGreg

  1. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    And you keep ignoring the most important points in your cherry picking. 1) the massive amount of land that would be required to supply new energy needs, let alone conversion of fossil fuel energy production, is a major concern... so simply relying on wind/solar is a non-starter. Consider the growth of electricity needs as population grows and as we transition to electric cars, heating, etc. The land demands are nothing to laugh at, particularly as the prime locations have already been picked up.... but please check my math (I'm sure there are some errors and some modest subjective figures, but the overall conclusions remain valid, I expect): So, even if there is some error and/or variability in the above, we would have to convert an area of land roughly the size of the US to wind farms to cover current needs, and another 150,000 square miles (50% more than the total area of New Zealand) every year... and that is not considering the increase in electrical demand as we convert more transportation and heating to electric from fossil fuels. How much of our land and near-shore waters are suitable to wind farms, and how much of that area is a sensitive habitat or scenic area? Now, consider a 1,000-megawatt nuclear facility needs just over one square mile of land, and has an average capacity factor of 90 percent, while wind farm capacity ranges from 32 to 47 percent (Solar PV capacity ranges from 17 to 28 percent). Taking these factors into account, a wind farm would need an installed capacity between 1,900 megawatts and 2,800 MW to generate the same amount of electricity in a year as a 1,000-MW nuclear energy facility. Such a facility would require between 260 square miles and 360 square miles of land. https://www.nei.org/news/2015/land-needs-for-wind-solar-dwarf-nuclear-plants So, yeah, I think it is reasonable to consider land coverage demand for wind when we are determining what is our best options for future energy policy. 2) Nuclear costs are FACTUALLY driven up by non-operational factors. As has been said, you are creating the added cost that you now claim makes nuclear a bad option. Love that logic. 3) Modern existing nuclear plants, without the obstruction/costs are absolutely cost effective, but just like when the Left was relying on advances in wind/solar tech to advance that as the future of energy, so should resources be applied into advancing the tech of new nuclear options. It is not that wind and solar have no place, but rather its potential is limited due to land demands and its own impact on the environment. 4) My "dated" material was about future nuclear options, not about the costs of nuclear or wind/solar, as you are fraudulently claiming.
  2. GauchoGreg

    Brest Atlantiques 2019

    I've always thought it would be easy to integrate some form of underwater whistle in the foils that could alert critters far off.
  3. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Oh, man, that would be the best ever.
  4. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    But you decide you know how much meat others eat, that it is "wrong", and it is your responsibility to preach to them. Similar for my trucks.... it does not matter that I need and like them, but drive them so little I'm probably using far less fuel than you, the fact that I have them is evil, not that I am contributing to pollution or CO2-caused global warming. This is where the "Green" cause takes on the religious aspect. It is based on a combination of faith in their cause/dogma, and damnation of the heathens.
  5. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    You HAVE to be trolling. No one can be your-kind-of-dense.
  6. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Something even those of us who butt heads politically can celebrate!
  7. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Downvote for religious idiocy. You really need to go back to the shallow end. Trucks are paid for, and sit in my driveway most of the time since I have chosen to live a highly efficient life. (and I pay plenty in gas tax) You ignored the entire discussion of nuclear power over the past several pages... most likely because you are too ignorant to understand and it goes against your pre-determined understanding. LEARN. My bloody steak is delicious, it is good for me in the amount I eat them, and I pay far more in my own health care premiums and my own taxes than I will ever take back from society. Now, please go back to your celery soup in your mom's basement and think about what you don't know.
  8. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Figure of speech, so, yeah, you would be right I will not give you my house. But I have opted to drive as little as possible, work from home, live in a place where I am close to all of my goods & services, and drive much less than half of the typical American.... but hey, congratulations on driving only 3,800km per year. Personally, that would not be something I would strive for or celebrate. Here is a sincere kudos... good for you in driving a small diesel rather than a hybrid or e-car... in current society, you have opted for the most environmentally friendly vehicle you could drive. So, honestly, good for you. Again, I've done my research on nuclear, as well as alternative energy, while it seems you place a barrier up against nuclear, period, and ignore the drawbacks of wind/solar. Now, my question for you, would you support nuclear, of any type, in ANY situation. Or is the word so taboo for you that you will never support it, regardless of how any form of nuclear may be superior? Do you put any value to the other side benefits I have pointed out. Seems to me, you are the one that has avoided research, and are incredibly close minded. Another item you keep ignoring (along with my valid point about the current world population could not be sustained in your agrarian lifestyle), is the amount of acreage, as well as where it would have to be, to satisfy current and future energy needs with wind or solar. I'm sure you will not like the source for the following, by try contesting the material/stats: world energy demand has been growing at about 2 per cent a year for nearly 40 years. Between 2013 and 2014, again using International Energy Agency data, it grew by just under 2,000 terawatt-hours. If wind turbines were to supply all of that growth but no more, how many would need to be built each year? The answer is nearly 350,000, since a two-megawatt turbine can produce about 0.005 terawatt-hours per annum. That’s one-and-a-half times as many as have been built in the world since governments started pouring consumer funds into this so-called industry in the early 2000s. With 50 acres per 2mw turbine, 350K turbines would require 17,500,000 acres per year (more than 27K square miles). And that is not even replacing current carbon-based power.... you would have to cover a very large percentage of the existing land mass to pull that off. Solar is not any more land efficient, although at least it can be used in roof-top applications, brownfields, etc. By the way, you mentioned out in-road applications have been deemed to not work... I would correct you that they are not currently feasible... who's to say that in-road solar could never work?
  9. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Bingo. He was responding to me with my Yukon XL and Crew Cab PU. He responded better than I had hoped.... showing either the envy you suggest, or the religious damnation that comes with those who see their world view as a religious quest... in this case to damn me to "Green Hell" for my audacity to want a vehicle that can hold all the people and gear we often need to move from Point A to Point B, often not on the smoothest of roads. Ignoring I said I would love to have my same rigs powered by a nice big e-motor some day. Also clueless about how much I drive my cars (I would bet my house I use less gas in the course of a year than he does)... just that I should not have such evil things.
  10. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    The best I can say about you is that you have avoided the typical anti-nuke slant that we could not possibly deal with nuclear "waste", must have had your ass handed to you by someone else on that issue. But your intellectually bankrupt nature is shown by: This point is foremost.... you are consistently ignoring the point that the cost of nuclear is artificially elevated by people like yourself.... I love that.... your ilk obstructs, appeals, protests, and causes the construction time for a plant to go up 10x, as well as its cost, then of course the $/mwh goes up accordingly.... then you say, "see, the energy costs too much"; you also keep ignoring that the modern/anticipated new nuclear designs (such as MSR, etc., why is it that you keep ignoring them?) are both fundamentally easier to site, profoundly less complex relative to their safety, and far more efficient... which will lead to much lower costs than what the current stock of plants can do (well, unless you obstruct them, too, like AOC and St. Greta have done by banning nuclear in their schemes); Ignoring that there has been no solution to the erratic nature of wind/solar (mass energy storage systems are further away, and/or represent major environmental issues on their own, than MSR reactors, etc.); Ignoring the transmission losses that are inherent from having wind & solar farms typically remote from the place of electrical use; Ignoring that I'm not suggesting we go away from "renewables", but rather that we need modern nuclear to allow for us to both more rapidly move away from coal/gas AND have all the electrical power we need to improve our quality of life and the quality of the environment; Ignoring that having an INCREASE in electrical power production can provide other benefits to the environment, like facilitate widespread desalination, which can increase instream water flows on our rivers, which will lead to healthier oceans, decommissioning dams to help fish and open up more arable lands... maybe even revealing Hetch Hetchy Valley to rival Yosemite, etc.), as well as opening up more arable lands to farming; Ignoring that the low hanging fruit for sites well suited to wind farms have been developed and are dwindling; leaving us with the need to move on to lesser sites, often natural places (sensitive habitats, scenic areas, etc.), open seas (funny how the same people that used to claim offshore oil rigs were "ugly", or protest new hydroelectric dams for ruining beautiful valleys, now turn a blind eye to onshore or offshore wind farms where they don't have to see them), and environmentally sensitive places, like Steens Mountain, with wind and solar farms (https://abcbirds.org/10-worst-wind-energy-sites-for-birds/); And, finally, for my comment that millions/billions would have to die... my point was in response to your self flagellation for your off-grid / home farm.... there is no way our world population could revert to the similar agrarian lifestyle of everyone growing their own food, producing their own energy, even with modern tech.... there is simply not enough arable land and irrigation water for such an incredibly inefficient concept (not to mention most people are just too inept and lazy to be that kind of person). Here is the thing, the problem is NOT that "renewable" energy is pushed for, the problem is that Leftists like those pushing the NGD (AOC, St. Greta, and all the anti-nuke politicians in the US, Europe, and Aus/NZ) are banning nuclear. What should happen is to the various energy tech should be scientifically studied and considered, with the winners being those scientifically and economically recognized as best for different places relative to clean electricity production, potential for expanded energy production, sensitivity to other environmental issues (such as preservation of natural habitats and scenic landscapes), AND, improves our economic well-being (ghast!). The problem is that people have turned this into a quasi-religious "green" quest, people like you with a druid-like celebration of your drop in consumption.... for the leaders of the movement ignoring science and demonizing people for suggesting alternative methods of reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and claiming they are "deniers" (akin, to the historic damning of heathens). It is made all the more clear by the celebration of St. Greta and her "green" sacrifice for her minions.
  11. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Well, at least you have that to root for.
  12. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Here you go, enjoy a 'marrut'
  13. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Talk about misinformation, you are king. The wired article I posted from 2010 was about developing nuclear options (I selected that one because it was a nice concise summary of newer nuclear concepts), but I posted links to more recent figures for the cost/mwh for both wind and solar, with references. Yes, wind & solar have been getting less expensive, but we have not seen effective, feasible methods of dealing with the erratic nature of production, and the more remote locations for grid-powering scale wind/solar farms result in higher transmission losses. I have rarely listened to Prager, let alone heard him discuss any of this. And, no, your faith in renewable energy is not enough.... it cannot do what I put forth without covering huge swaths of our natural open spaces and seas, which I find far more troublesome than any issues related to modern nuclear options. NO WAY wind/solar can even replace current power production by coal and gas without unacceptable blanketing of the earth, let alone the huge increases in electricity production that will be necessary to power up wholesale transition of our transportation to e-vehicles, home heating, and industry (such as metal smelting, etc.), and it is simply dreaming that it could handle expanded energy demands for things such as desalination to mitigate rising oceans and enable irrigation of new farmlands, and desalinating otherwise arable lands that have been rendered sterile due to long-term salt build-up (again, unless you believe we should slap turbines and PV panels pretty much everywhere. By the way, again, the idea that we should be restricted in our liberties, such as the size of car we want to drive (I happily drive a Yukon XL and Crew Cab Silverado 6.2 pickup), while restricting nuclear and only promoting wind/solar is insanely stupid. I'm looking forward to large electric motors that will power up full size vehicles like mine, and drawing tons of electricity through the grid powered by incredibly clean nuclear plants.... and everyone else can do the same. There is no need to limit what we can do so that we can only go with wind and solar. And thank you, but I'm not going to cook my big bloody ribeye steak with a fucking solar oven.
  14. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    See within the quote block my responses.
  15. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    So, you are using a long-since obsolete plant design placed on a fault line, destroyed by a 100+ year geologic event as evidence that nuclear can be expensive. Yeah, that about sums up the opposition to nuclear. Ignoring what would be the next gen nuclear would be nothing like that, and ignoring the really amazing developing tech with MSR designs which would be entirely safe. That and your second point, using current costs of nuclear, which are artificially driven up by the delays/legal costs created by "Environmentalist" efforts against nuclear. As for where Uranium is... that is not the problem you are making it out to be. Political instability is problem, regardless, but there are options to get around that issue, as well.
  16. GauchoGreg

    Ultime / G-Class Development

    Getting back to the development subject, it will be very interesting to hear if any notable changes are incorporated into the new Banque Pop or Macif boats due to the experiences of the Brest Atlantic race. Sounds like Armel may be hinting to it....
  17. GauchoGreg

    Brest Atlantiques 2019

    A few things come to mind watching that video: Well, that boat is ripping along pretty damned fast without the leeward rudder for lift/downforce.... and without the back bunch of feet of ama.... so, maybe the smart thing to do is keep the ama light and not try to design it to sustain impact from a loose rudder, but rather design the ama to be able to loose that back few feet and simply keep sailing, like they are doing. I mean, they have been consistently surpassing 30knts without the rudder or the back end of the ama... who is to say it would be better if they designed the rudder so heavy to take an impact, or the ama to sustain a swinging loose rudder. Hell, looking at that video, it seems they could just make the turn at Cape Town and head home. I'm sure there will be conditions that it really slows them down, but it does not seem as though there is anything back there, now, that would be leading to continued rapid increased damage. Of course the regular disclaimer that I don't know shit. The other thing that came to mind... they have a pretty damned fast-ass drone... going back to our other discussion, but of course they are not heading upwind.
  18. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    There was no misinformation, intended or otherwise. The point is that the US is reducing their CO2 emissions overall, and of course per-capita, while India is increasing its CO2 emissions per capita and overall. That may be slowing, but it is still going in the opposite direction as the US. Further, it is the fault of the "environmentalists" that have obstructed nuclear from taking over the electricity production in the US from coal and gas (although at least gas has led the overall reduction in CO2), which would have substantially reduce our per capita (and of course overall) CO2 production far more. By the way, nice that you feel your quality of life has improved from lower consumption, but that is a purely subjective feeling, rather than objective analysis. As an example... being forced to drive smaller/lighter cars reduces the things you can do with those cars, and the options available to you. Such as driving a bunch of kids to a lacrosse, football, futball, or rugby practice/game. And do we even need to go into the drawbacks of relying on bicycles if you live in cold/rainy places and want/need to take significant amounts of work/personal stuff to/from work? Such as having a bigger house if you like, which enables you to do things you can't do in a small house. Such as taking more trips if you like. Or buying a new sailboat. Your liking a more zen-like existence (or whatever reason you believe lower consumption has made your life better) is your option, but if you are forced into that more zen-like existence, it is effectively reducing your liberties and options. I would prefer far more energy produced if it can be done without increase in pollution or CO2, or reduction in natural habitat, coverage of landscapes with wind/solar farms, or pose any notable increase in risk. That energy can open more doors and make productivity higher, reducing the costs of products and making them more available. The only known ways to accomplish that is through modern nuclear tech (and maybe geothermal, and possibly tidal), such as new MSR designs (some of them even involve subterranean power plants.
  19. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Hold on, there, pardner.... Before you go all "denier" on us, and "misusing bad information", lets cover a few things. First of all, there was no settled science that concluded we were warming the world until the 2000s. This was my field of study, I personally bought the gas-bag Al Gore's book "Earth in the Balance", on my own dime, because I was interested in what he had to say, when it first came out back in 1992 or 93, as I was finishing up my degree in Environmental Studies. At that time, the environmentalist focus was more on the Ozone, deforestation, preservation of wild places and wetlands, clean water, clean air, etc. There was no consensus of any sort, or push, relative to global warming. An example, when the positives of nuclear were discussed then, it was more based on the non-pollutant emissions compared to coal, rather than non-CO2 emissions relative to coal... I'm saying that to point out that CO2 emissions were not a widespread issue until the late 1990s, at the very earliest, and not really looked at by anything remotely touching majority science until the 2000s. Meanwhile, the US and Europe had already made great strides in reducing smog type air pollution, which had been the big air-related issue. This is important because it goes to when any real drive to reduce CO2 emissions should realistically have started. So, yeah, our transportation fleets and energy production are not yet transitioned to low/no CO2 emitting tech. Not exactly damning (well, unless you consider that nuclear should have been far more widespread in use had it not been for the "environmentalist" led obstruction from the 1960s-2000s), considering it was not a recognized issue and it takes a considerable amount of time to transition the combination of power production, transmission infrastructure, point-of-use systems, and vehicle fleets. So, there was not reason to see it as "bad" that Americans and others in the Western world use a lot of energy per person, if it is not causing pollution (and in fact, it was getting cleaner and cleaner). Secondly, again, it is not being a "denier" to fight against asinine policy and promote something different, something better. Pretty much everyone thinks of themselves as environmentalists in the context of wanting a clean world, a world where natural areas remain, and where environmental systems are functioning well. It is just that we may see the best solutions to our problems differently. The solutions promoted by those like Greta's handlers, or Alexandra Ocasio Cortez.... the New Green Deal, or the European/Australian/New Zealand equivalents, demand that everyone subject themselves to lower quality of life based on dramatically reduced consumption, drive up taxes to fund insane wide-spread redevelopment, and fixate on power sources that are low in quality (low intensity power requires dedication of massive areas of land & sea, fluctuate dramatically based on weather, and are often localized in areas that demand long transmission to population centers), and are not likely to be able to easily replace existing power production any time soon, let alone provide the increase in production necessary to transition transportation fleets. The proposals of the Leftists (like AOC's NGD in America), are often stuffed with socialist policy not even related to CO2 emissions or otherwise environmental, but rather expose the underlying philosophy rather than the drive to combat global warming. These policies very much are a political power grab wanting to social engineer society more than promote solutions that would simply solve the problem and allow people to enjoy their quality of life (such as being able to drive a bigger car/truck, if that is what they want, or live in a bigger home, or take a fucking trip to Europe). So, pointing out that China & India are the place we need to focus on is based on the very real facts that they have populations that dwarf America and are increasing rapidly and their CO2 emissions per person are increasing dramatically, while America's population is stabilizing and our CO2 emissions per person are declining (and will decline all the faster if we can develop energy sources that reduce our CO2 emissions more and we have enough more electricity to supply an expanding e-vehicle fleet. It is not misusing bad information to point out where the real problem moving forward is, and to say fuck-off to those who thrust Greta on us, telling us "how dare you".
  20. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    This was such a brilliant idea. Don't they know the Global Climate Catastrophe has made Atlantic crossings in 40' catamarans in November too dangerous?
  21. GauchoGreg

    Brest Atlantiques 2019

    Gotta love broken boat sailing at 30+knts.
  22. GauchoGreg

    Brest Atlantiques 2019

    That sucks... that's not shocking given the last photo of where the rudder was supposed to be and the parts hanging around and banging the crap out of the boat behind it.
  23. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Calling BS on that. I do not think for a second they (Greta's handlers) are promoting sailing as much as they are continuing to try and pump the GND and any European corollaries with ongoing publicity for Greta. They don't give a crap about sailing.