RobbieB

Greta Rides Again?

Recommended Posts

Just now, hasher said:

Autistic children might have knowledge you lack.

This is true. I have never played Yatzy. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LB 15 said:

This is true. I have never played Yatzy. 

That's a non sequitur.  Humor seems to be your forte.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasher said:

First, you should pay for driving your big ass cars.  You impose costs on your fellow travelers.   Pay.

He does. It's called fuel excise.

2 hours ago, hasher said:

Third, I hope you know that your big bloody ribeye steak may cost society a lot of money.  Obesity and heart problems go hand in hand.  Please pay for the chaos you advocate. 

So steaks = chaos advocation - who knew.  You sound like fun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Dark Cloud said:

He does. It's called fuel excise.

So steaks = chaos advocation - who knew.  You sound like fun.

No.  The air in my city sometimes causes some people to go to the hospital rather than work.  The clean air act doesn't work as well as it should.

Obesity and health care costs are linked.  Eat your 16oz steak for years and whine up in the cemetery.  I'm sure that will be my fault in your dead brain.

Is it sad to know your brain died before your body?  It seems to be one area you might speak about.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with you re: obesity, and if my diet put me in a cemetery, it too would be my own doing.

But your dietary advice is out of date. Red meat does not automatically equal obesity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Dark Cloud said:

Agree with you re: obesity, and if my diet put me in a cemetery, it too would be my own doing.

But your dietary advice is out of date. Red meat does not automatically equal obesity.

I eat read meat.  I know that excessive amounts are bad for the planet and me.  So?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, hasher said:

No.  The air in my city sometimes causes some people to go to the hospital rather than work.  The clean air act doesn't work as well as it should.

Obesity and health care costs are linked.  Eat your 16oz steak for years and whine up in the cemetery.  I'm sure that will be my fault in your dead brain.

Is it sad to know your brain died before your body?  It seems to be one area you might speak about.

Your city is a dystopian late 20th century automotive nightmare. That's why.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fastyacht said:

Your city is a dystopian late 20th century automotive nightmare. That's why.

And I believe that rational thought and good policy can create good outcomes.  Not that difficult to comprehend unless your dogmatic.  (No offense puppy, I know you don't know the word).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasher said:

 

4 minutes ago, hasher said:

And I believe that rational thought and good policy can create good outcomes.  Not that difficult to comprehend unless your dogmatic.  (No offense puppy, I know you don't know the word).

 

I agree. But where are those good policies? When I drove through your city 3 months ago there was a huge amount of effort being spent on the interstate widening. Same old same old. Florida? Same thing. Mobile? Same thing. Columbus O? Same thing. Seattle? Same thing. Cars cars cars gotta move the cars. More lanes, bring more lanes. Somehow nobody ever seems to learn from history on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MidPack said:

Maybe Greta will never leave Sweden again when/if she ever gets back.

We live in hope.

2e9b028ec4e640bc01bed1f58c8cdc11.jpg

 

5 hours ago, Starboard!! said:

the Vagabond folks are annoying twits

+1

3 hours ago, Sail4beer said:

I feel REALLY BAD for the entire crew of this boat. That cat is going to take a pounding before they get to safe harbor 

That’s very charitable of you.

Personally, I have no sympathy. They deliberately ventured out at a very unseasonable time, into what they must have known would be plenty of rough weather, all in the name of pointless virtue signalling and publicity.

I only hope that they don’t declare a Mayday and put innocent lives at risk (although it would be very amusing if they were rescued by a passing supertanker!).

supertanker.jpg

3 hours ago, hasher said:

Please pay for the chaos you advocate. 

You DO realize this this entire website is dedicated to the promotion of anarchy, right?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Svanen said:

We live in hope.

2e9b028ec4e640bc01bed1f58c8cdc11.jpg

 

+1

That’s very charitable of you.

Personally, I have no sympathy. They deliberately ventured out at a very unseasonable time, into what they must have known would be plenty of rough weather, all in the name of pointless virtue signalling and publicity.

I only hope that they don’t declare a Mayday and put innocent lives at risk (although it would be very amusing if they were rescued by a passing supertanker!).

supertanker.jpg

You DO realize this this entire website is dedicated to the promotion of anarchy, right?

More like middle aged men pretending they are rebellious teens.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasher said:

That's a non sequitur.  

Huh? Are you saying that I have played Yatzy? I haven’t. But can you get me some of your hash?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasher said:

Most, prefer to look at the best science has to offer.  And then offer political choices.  Neanderthals fail to keep up.  Perhaps you move your brain faster or accept the fate of your predecessors.

 

:lol: When have the best political choices ever involved science. The two are like oil and water. They have a very thin interface used only if it complements the political choice desired. Plus this is a one way use. As scientists get more political they need to drop the rigours of true science and adopt the bendy, bullshit ways of politics. To do otherwise would consign you to the wastelands of political life. Of use to neither side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasher said:

I eat read meat.  I know that excessive amounts are bad for the planet and me.  So?

What is read meat? Is that the next step beyond veganism where you eat pictures of meat from receipt books?

I have to agree, a lot of trees get cut down to produce the paper in those books.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Huh? Are you saying that I have played Yatzy? I haven’t. But can you get me some of your hash?

I've heard Moroccan hashish is pretty good and made up in the mountains there.

Perhaps these Danish & Norwegian girls heard the same.

image.png.699f6b51bd615c5b5adeeb39b158f5b8.png 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dark Cloud said:

Red meat does not automatically equal obesity.

Agreed.

For me, I ate less, and lost 12 kg.

Probably was eating too much to start with. Didn't think I was overweight until I lost it. Now I think I could lose another 5 kg. Am eating an average of 60 g a day (Some days I skip, don't really notice it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gissie said:

:lol: When have the best political choices ever involved science. The two are like oil and water. They have a very thin interface used only if it complements the political choice desired. Plus this is a one way use. As scientists get more political they need to drop the rigours of true science and adopt the bendy, bullshit ways of politics. To do otherwise would consign you to the wastelands of political life. Of use to neither side.

Well, there was taking up Einstein's proposal to build an atomic bomb.  Was that a good or terrible political choice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Agreed.

For me, I ate less, and lost 12 kg.

Probably was eating too much to start with. Didn't think I was overweight until I lost it. Now I think I could lose another 5 kg. Am eating an average of 60 g a day (Some days I skip, don't really notice it).

Smoke much dick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, LB 15 said:

Smoke much dick?

Please, call me Richard. (The answer is no, no smoking dick. Never noticed it smoking, even on a busy Tuesday.)

How about you, roger?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought this was the subject of this Thread 
 

A photograph of a Greta Thunberg lookalike from 1898 is sparking conspiracy theories that she's a time traveler

https://www.insider.com/greta-thunbergs-lookalike-been-spotted-in-a-picture-from-1898-2019-11?utm_content=bufferd180f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer-ti

C994C911-9F3E-443E-8043-23236AC6E2DF.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Left Shift said:

Well, there was taking up Einstein's proposal to build an atomic bomb.  Was that a good or terrible political choice?

Depends if you are American or Japanese.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What’s the over/under for max sustained wind speed and wave height?

 

is their location available without a ridiculously priced annual subscription?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, toecutter said:

Of course it is. Much better to base the future of human society on tree rings.

You are just showing again and again that you were asleep or thinking about something else during your science classes.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toecutter said:

When I last had science class, thermonuclear winter was the boogeyman.

That was pretty real back then. Sting wrote some great songs in that era. Then he went all green and political like U2 and fucked it up.

He had some world-class musos back in the 'Dream of the blue turtle' and 'Bring on the night' stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Agreed.

For me, I ate less, and lost 12 kg.

Probably was eating too much to start with. Didn't think I was overweight until I lost it. Now I think I could lose another 5 kg. Am eating an average of 60 g a day (Some days I skip, don't really notice it).

I just ate a 350g dry-aged T-bone - there goes my weeks quota. Deliciousness. I did use sustainably sourced local ironbark charcoal from the state of Victoria, rather than that imported mangrove shit from SE Asia to 'heat it'.  So I got some green cred right there.  I was going to use my new solar oven, but since I don't cook until after work, the sun has usually always fucked off by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ABC which seems to like Greta's left wing nutter panic message managed to find the only photo of Greta with a smile to compare with her time traveler self

 

11729398-3x2-940x627.jpg 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This was my Mid Atlantic rig inspection. Necessito and all good.#sailinglavagabonde

I received a message that mum was recognised in a cafe in Australia after seeing what she was monitoring on her phone 

Thanks for following along with us, it’s updated every hour: 
http://sailing-lavagabonde.com

75450132_2709720059079818_14168127907183
 
75305227_2709692879082536_73865696499843

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Day 7

It’s 5pm and just finished our game of Yatzy that we started the other night. Suspiciously Greta and Svante won - I’d say they have had some practice!

We have had a good day - a long day too. (Riley and I have found our most productive time of day seems to be between 2 and 6am.) Activity was mainly themed around fixing the few niggly bits onboard that have needed some attention - furling line, wind instruments, steering gear - and preparing for the weather ahead over the next few days the phrase ‘batten down the hatches’ so to speak.

Riley just concluded the jobs list - isn't it just the BEST feeling to cross off the to-do list?! - popped up to the top of the pointy stick (mast) to double check the rigging is OK. This is good practice after a big blow, and before one - so two birds with one stone. I’m happy to report we were successful on all counts, and everything is in good working order. This boat is one steadfast beauty!

Now for our news hour of the day where we read each other the headlines from home and stay in touch with all of you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Day 8

0540 ship's time and the dawn is nearly breaking the horizon. It’s been a serious night! We sailed through two or three thunderstorms - rain like a monsoon, thunder that made me nearly jump out of my skin ... I was just waiting to see if there were monsters under my bed ... bunk ... although we sleep in the saloon to avoid disturbing our precious crew mates ... so perhaps under the sofa? - and lightning. Wow. It was blinding - electric - stunning and terrifying at the same time. We avoided it all successfully.

We are still playing the tortoise not the hare - the weather looks possibly slightly better up ahead with the latest forecast, but we are keeping an eye on things and holding back until we are 100% happy. Then it will be pedal down and fast sailing east - I hope!

74913038_122039412575828_864902860464403

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Day 9

Well 2 am brought a monumental moment for us on our journey so far - we made it through the cold front!! The wind has started to shift from the south round to the west. It feels quite a relief.

Just as forecast, we spent the last 24 hours or so in gusty conditions - blowing 30 up to 45 knots from behind us. Thankfully the waves were not bad at all probably due to the fact that we kept ourselves south. But the rain on the other hand - wow - I’m British and even I thought that was a lot of rain ... everything is soaked - we have got to the stage where you barely have to wash you hands and your fingertips turn back to something closer to a prune.

When you sail in cold weather - or big winds - there are a few comforts that make it all so much more manageable. For me, nothing beats a hot cup of tea - even better when shared with friends. There has been a lot of those going round over the past few days - friends and hot drinks - which is no mean feat when you are sailing in 45 knots and there is no kettle! Just a pan, and a steady hand.

 

75472910_122498965863206_191042798756875

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Day 10

We are on the move again. It has been a glorious day. The big purple spinnaker was flying all yesterday afternoon and into the night, and we dropped it as the wind increased around 2200. The boat has been soaring - absolutely sending it! 10-20 knots all day. Amazing. The hum as La Vagabonde starts to plane is a familiar feeling now - and as the sea state flattens we are going even faster.

We have played around with which tack to sail on - right now the wind is coming from exactly opposite where we want to go - we are sailing angles, rather than dead downwind, so the decision of whether to sail more east or more north of our rhumb line is our main challenge right now. We are heading east for now, due to its better VMG (velocity made good - the speed we are moving in the direction of Lisbon). We can only sail about 10-20 degrees course on the other tack.

Not only has the sailing been good - but so has the camaraderie. We cracked open the bottle of Macallan and had a small dram before dinner, as well as a much awaited bag of crisps (a high commodity onboard!) and sat around our dinner table listening to Elayna play the guitar and sing. She has a beautiful voice.

For me - the only Crew member with no family onboard - moments like this are particularly special - to feel the closeness and love of community.

It feels like a bit of a come down after a week of poring over a challenging weather forecast - lots of upwind sailing - careful positioning - slow progress - with a very windy front inevitably awaiting us. So relief was in the air - at least from Riley and myself. Relief but never total relaxation .. we are not even halfway if you count the miles - and I’m sure the North Atlantic will have another challenge to throw our way - so we are as ever - on watch! ... and awake at 0300am.

77120169_123028649143571_806743669786175

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Left Shift said:

Well, there was taking up Einstein's proposal to build an atomic bomb.  Was that a good or terrible political choice?

False news. The Germans were working on the project and America was lucky enough to get a number of top exiled German scientists working on the project. 
It wasn’t a political decision, it was a military decision. If the Gemans has developed one first things would have been very different

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

No Greta has ...fuck get with the programme.

I was asking. Someone from France was talking about his interactions with people from the early middle ages!

...and dammit... I missed out on getting tickets for the programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Dark Knight said:

The big purple spinnaker was flying all yesterday afternoon and into the night, and we dropped it as the wind increased around 2200. The boat has been soaring - absolutely sending it! 10-20 knots all day. Amazing. The hum as La Vagabonde starts to plane is a familiar feeling now - and as the sea state flattens we are going even faster.

Missed it.  Their data (when I looked) almost got to 10 knots. Saw they were doing 9 knots in 18 knot wind on a broad reach/run. But they are back to 4.7 knots in 20 knots... now 7.6 knots... and all this slowing down means they may miss the 30 knot pressure on the reach, I'm thinking that might be their intention.

Wondering about this new nautical term called "soaring". Great to hear they are getting the cat up on the plane with the kite up.

image.png.20ac49dd6760314eeed4b7d07ae7502c.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, hasher said:

First, you should pay for driving your big ass cars.  You impose costs on your fellow travelers.   Pay.

Second, you should take a look at Georgia's new nuclear plants.  I wish someone else would pay but it will primarily be homeowners, as we pay the highest rates.

Third, I hope you know that your big bloody ribeye steak may cost society a lot of money.  Obesity and heart problems go hand in hand.  Please pay for the chaos you advocate. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Missed it.  Their data (when I looked) almost got to 10 knots. Saw they were doing 9 knots in 18 knot wind on a broad reach/run. But they are back to 4.7 knots in 20 knots... now 7.6 knots... and all this slowing down means they may miss the 30 knot pressure on the reach, I'm thinking that might be their intention.

Wondering about this new nautical term called "soaring". Great to hear they are getting the cat up on the plane with the kite up.

image.png.20ac49dd6760314eeed4b7d07ae7502c.png

 

The forecast path of TS Sebastien (the tight low at roughly 25 N, 57 W) is towards the NE and then curving, basically following the seam to their east before curving around the Azores High and towards the Azores and then into Lisbon.  It's also forecast to potentially strengthen to a Cat 1 hurricane.  I would be slowing up and letting it pass by as well. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Hey now! Get up to date. Steak doesn't cause obesity or heart problems, hasher.  McDonald's might but it ain't because of the meat.  Don't listen to sugar-industry funded shit

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hasher said:

No.  The air in my city sometimes causes some people to go to the hospital rather than work.  The clean air act doesn't work as well as it should.

Obesity and health care costs are linked.  Eat your 16oz steak for years and whine up in the cemetery.  I'm sure that will be my fault in your dead brain.

Is it sad to know your brain died before your body?  It seems to be one area you might speak about.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, toecutter said:

When I last had science class, thermonuclear winter was the boogeyman.

The scientific method is older than the oldest farts still living on this planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, hasher said:

I eat read meat.  I know that excessive amounts are bad for the planet and me.  So?

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Svanen said:

We live in hope.

2e9b028ec4e640bc01bed1f58c8cdc11.jpg

 

+1

That’s very charitable of you.

Personally, I have no sympathy. They deliberately ventured out at a very unseasonable time, into what they must have known would be plenty of rough weather, all in the name of pointless virtue signalling and publicity.

I only hope that they don’t declare a Mayday and put innocent lives at risk (although it would be very amusing if they were rescued by a passing supertanker!).

supertanker.jpg

You DO realize this this entire website is dedicated to the promotion of anarchy, right?

Oh, man, that would be the best ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Svanen said:

We live in hope.

2e9b028ec4e640bc01bed1f58c8cdc11.jpg

 

+1

That’s very charitable of you.

Personally, I have no sympathy. They deliberately ventured out at a very unseasonable time, into what they must have known would be plenty of rough weather, all in the name of pointless virtue signalling and publicity.

I only hope that they don’t declare a Mayday and put innocent lives at risk (although it would be very amusing if they were rescued by a passing supertanker!).

supertanker.jpg

You DO realize this this entire website is dedicated to the promotion of anarchy, right?

Anarchy: 

a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

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.

Agreed there are lessons to learn about the prior discussion. For example, I learnt that @GauchoGreg is promoting nuclear solutions which are more expensive, slower to build pooh-poohs solar and wind as being unreliable. The data he posted out of date (especially using old figures for the cost of solar) and nuclear technology which does not exist.

A lot of this is in the non partisan 2019 EIC report, however @GauchoGreg is more interested in making this about bipartisan politics. So important is this EIC report, that the World Nuclear Status Report quoted it:

Quote

Today, the high capital cost of nuclear makes it significantly more costly on a levelized costs basis than wind power or gas fired generation in both the European Union and United States. By 2040, in the United States, the LCOE for nuclear power is projected to be around USD100 per MWh, double that of solar PV and wind. In the European Union, the gap is smaller as nuclear’s LCOE averages around USD110 per MWh compared to wind and solar PV in range of USD 85–90 per MWh.

In short, experts within the nuclear industry are making statements which directly contradict the nonsense that @GauchoGreg has put forward.

The future figures, as I have already put forward, show a widening gap between renewable power generation and nuclear. Other countries are already achieving solar at a cost of less the $40 per MWh.

Yes, there are lessons to be learnt.

38 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

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.

I hear you @GauchoGreg - you are very defensive about your 'need' for big trucks, and proud that you are only fucking the planet a little. (I'm intrigued by your definition of "a little". How many miles per year do you drive? Have you figured out how much fossil fuel you personally burn?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Agreed there are lessons to learn about the prior discussion. For example, I learnt that @GauchoGreg is promoting nuclear solutions which are more expensive, slower to build pooh-poohs solar and wind as being unreliable. The data he posted out of date (especially using old figures for the cost of solar) and nuclear technology which does not exist.

A lot of this is in the non partisan 2019 EIC report, however @GauchoGreg is more interested in making this about bipartisan politics. So important is this EIC report, that the World Nuclear Status Report quoted it:

In short, experts withing the nuclear industry are making statements which directly contradict the nonsense that @GauchoGreg has put forward.

The future figures, as I have already put forward, show a widening gap between renewable power generation and nuclear. Other countries are already achieving solar at a cost of less the $40 per MWh.

Yes, there are lessons to be learnt.

I hear you @GauchoGreg - you are very defensive about your 'need' for big trucks, and proud that you are only fucking the planet a little. (I'm intrigued by your definition of "a little". How many miles per year do you drive? Have you figured out how much fossil fuel you personally burn?)

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):

image.png.54f8b859984a5a436dc57ea945d758a3.png

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bruce Hudson said:

I hear you @GauchoGreg - you are very defensive about your 'need' for big trucks, and proud that you are only fucking the planet a little. (I'm intrigued by your definition of "a little". How many miles per year do you drive? Have you figured out how much fossil fuel you personally burn?)

And here we are with your bullshit about "fucking up the planet a little", and being defensive.  I am not the slightest bit defensive, as I do not feel the slightest bit that driving a big truck is "wrong", I leave that kind of idiotic thinking to those who see this as a religious quest... hence why I preemptively proclaimed my ownership (and as I had hoped with my trolling, flushed out the instant condemnation I expected from the flock).  But sure, I will provide the info to your questions.... I drive about 3,000 miles per year.  I get, on average, around 21mpg, as my driving, when I do drive, is mostly highway.  When I go places, we pack the car with the full family, plus a bunch of gear, and go have fun (often killing things and enjoying the great outdoors before they are covered by wind turbines in the name of being "green". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gaucho your figures about wind turbine size / areas are very old. The largest turbines being commercially built are now 12-14 MW monsters, and installed offshore. Land based are getting around 4-6 MW. You don't have to power the whole world with wind power. We do have to reduce emissions and if it's a combination of hydroelectricity, wind, solar, and nuclear that's fine with me.

Interesting article about other countries kept the cost of building new nuclear down - and the US did not. A fragmented utility system (US) versus settling on a few designs and repeating (France/S. Korea).

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea

 

Getting back to La Vag: they've positioned themselves well. If the cold front dissipates as predicted and the TS Sebastian dissipates they should have a straight shot to the Azores and much nicer conditions broad reaching in light airs.

 

image.png.3af2df18f4c9e4d05b45a2d056dc3a60.png

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GauchoGreg said:

And you keep ignoring the most important points in your cherry picking.

Nonsense. I'm pointing out the errors of what you have said, and have made some basic statements. There is little or no growth in nuclear power generation, and unlikely to be. There is enormous growth in solar and wind.

I've noticed that a trend is for intellectually challenged individuals to push hard in accusing the very things they are guilty of. In this case "cherry picking".

1 hour ago, GauchoGreg said:

The massive amount of land that would be required to supply new energy needs

This is not a "massive" concern, otherwise solar and wind would not already be PART OF THE MIX. It is important to know that solar and wind are a part of, and not the only way power is generated. Your errors include not accounting for dual use of land (for example, solar panels on roofs), increasing efficiency of the technology, the dynamic nature of power use etc. In your table, you made the calculation of the land area needed to power the world's needs with wind. A lot of wind generation is offshore. (That means it is not on land. Last year, when in Kent, UK, I was looking at the offshore wind turbines and wondering how many boats on autopilot sail into them.). Anyhow, nobody is proposing that all of the world's production comes from wind. When the wind blows it allows less fossil fuels to be burnt, and hydro lakes to fill up. You are fighting shadows. Calculating the amount of land needed to power the world by land based wind generation is a stupid calculation.

(Same with solar, but that didn't prevent others from doing it: https://ecotality.com/how-many-solar-panels-to-power-the-world/ )

1 hour ago, GauchoGreg said:

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.

Yes. These costs still need to be paid. The high build cost, long time planning and building are a definite down side to nuclear which explains why solar will shortly be generating more power than nuclear. I am not creating these costs (but thank you for imagining I might). I agree with this logic, and it is explained in depth by the EIC report (and others) by experts in their field.

1 hour ago, GauchoGreg said:

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.

The costs have been calculated, and are in the public domain. New nuclear has potential, especially plans to use already depleted uranium. The build costs are real (not imagined) and are a barrier to the new nuclear. There were plans for a new nuclear plant in China, however because the plans were American, Trump's trade war stopped that. (The hope is to restart the plans after the trade war). There is a limited resource of depleted uranium, but nuclear is a valid part of the mix. 

1 hour ago, GauchoGreg said:

4)  My "dated" material was about future nuclear options, not about the costs of nuclear or wind/solar, as you are fraudulently claiming.

Because you were quoting old data, your "new" nuclear was "new" ten years ago. The new nuclear being spoken about in the 2019 reports I have shared are quite different to the ones you spoke about, are a further improved technology and have different costs. Please show me where I made any fraudulent claim, and I shall unreserved apologize. 

In the meantime, you are being dumb as fuck, promoting the assumed notion that I am anti nuclear (I'm not) and leftist (I'm a centrist, from a global perspective). 

54 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

But sure, I will provide the info to your questions.... I drive about 3,000 miles per year.  I get, on average, around 21mpg, as my driving, when I do drive, is mostly highway.  When I go places, we pack the car with the full family, plus a bunch of gear, and go have fun (often killing things and enjoying the great outdoors before they are covered by wind turbines in the name of being "green". 

Please confirm that you genuinely think someone (anyone) is proposing to power the planet entirely with wind.

Good to hear that you confirm that you are burning 10 litres of gas a week.  That's just the fuel for your big trucks. (Your fuel use is about 11 litres per 100 km.) Good to hear you are only fucking up the planet a little.

How about your household use? Do you burn gas directly? Or indirectly via one of those antiquated power plants that burn fossil fuel.

(PS: Ever wonder how much concrete is needed to build a nuclear power plant? Or house depleted uranium?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Gaucho your figures about wind turbine size / areas are very old. The largest turbines being commercially built are now 12-14 MW monsters, and installed offshore. Land based are getting around 4-6 MW. You don't have to power the whole world with wind power. We do have to reduce emissions and if it's a combination of hydroelectricity, wind, solar, and nuclear that's fine with me.

Interesting article about other countries kept the cost of building new nuclear down - and the US did not. A fragmented utility system (US) versus settling on a few designs and repeating (France/S. Korea).

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea

 

Getting back to La Vag: they've positioned themselves well. If the cold front dissipates as predicted and the TS Sebastian dissipates they should have a straight shot to the Azores and much nicer conditions broad reaching in light airs.

 

image.png.3af2df18f4c9e4d05b45a2d056dc3a60.png

Thanks for reasoned discussion.  I do recognize that newer wind designs are more efficient, and it was good you point that out.  But they do require more acres/sqmiles per turbine, so it it not like the efficiency goes 1-to-1 for reduced land area.  Even if the figures on acres/miles per turbine are off, I'm guessing it is not that far off (more than 50%?) and even if so, that is still MASSIVE amounts of land/sea.

Further, you are making my point, thank you, that we cannot put up with crap like the NGD that expressly bans nuclear... I have never claimed that we should not use any wind/solar. My point is that we should NOT destroy wild places, open landscapes appreciated by the public and sensitive habitats, be that hydro, wind, or solar under some insane concept that it is "green".  I'm all in favor of it applied on farmland, industrial areas, urban areas etc. where it makes sense and is safe.  We should use ALL sensible power options in a prudent manner.  But that is NOT what St. Greta's handlers want, and their ilk.  They expressly ban nuclear.

But thank you for that article, it is excellent (kudos to Vox, of all sources, for providing a very good, objective article on the subject).  I specifically point out the following excerpt that goes to the point I have been making:

 

"

But the process unfolded haphazardly. Rules and requirements sometimes changed midway through construction. That meant delays. And delays are crippling for any big, labor-intensive project. Idling workers and equipment can lead to massive budget overruns. By the early 1970s, nuclear construction costs had risen to $1,800 to $2,500/kW in today's dollars — about the cost of modern wind farms.

Additional woes followed. In its 1971 Calvert Cliffs decision, the DC Circuit Court ordered nuclear regulators to change their rules to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. That opened the door for citizen lawsuits to intervene in the licensing and construction process, sometimes causing further slowdowns.

Then nuclear suffered a mortal blow after the much-publicized (but nonfatal) meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Every reactor still under construction at the time — 51 in total — suddenly faced major regulatory delays, changes in safety procedures, and new back-fit requirements. Construction times doubled, stretching out past 10 years. Costs went through the roof, past $7,000/kW for some reactors:

"

Bruce Hudson will, surely, ignore that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

 

Additional woes followed. In its 1971 Calvert Cliffs decision, the DC Circuit Court ordered nuclear regulators to change their rules to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. That opened the door for citizen lawsuits to intervene in the licensing and construction process, sometimes causing further slowdowns.

 

Are you saying that nuclear projects shouldn't be subject to NEPA?  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

But the process unfolded haphazardly. Rules and requirements sometimes changed midway through construction. That meant delays. And delays are crippling for any big, labor-intensive project. Idling workers and equipment can lead to massive budget overruns. By the early 1970s, nuclear construction costs had risen to $1,800 to $2,500/kW in today's dollars — about the cost of modern wind farms.

Additional woes followed. In its 1971 Calvert Cliffs decision, the DC Circuit Court ordered nuclear regulators to change their rules to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. That opened the door for citizen lawsuits to intervene in the licensing and construction process, sometimes causing further slowdowns.

Then nuclear suffered a mortal blow after the much-publicized (but nonfatal) meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979. Every reactor still under construction at the time — 51 in total — suddenly faced major regulatory delays, changes in safety procedures, and new back-fit requirements. Construction times doubled, stretching out past 10 years. Costs went through the roof, past $7,000/kW for some reactors:

The 2016 Vox article is out of date.

Nuclear is now cheaper. Wind and solar are cheaper still.

3 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Bruce Hudson will, surely, ignore that.

You're being a dick. You need to face that I am far more up to date than you, and less prone to making stupid assumptions. 

The data I've been working off is from 2019.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Nonsense. I'm pointing out the errors of what you have said, and have made some basic statements. There is little or no growth in nuclear power generation, and unlikely to be. There is enormous growth in solar and wind.

I've noticed that a trend is for intellectually challenged individuals to push hard in accusing the very things they are guilty of. In this case "cherry picking".

This is not a massive concern, otherwise solar and wind would not be PART OF THE MIX. It is important to know that solar and wind are a part of, and not the only way power is generated. Your errors include not accounting for dual use of land (for example, solar panels on roofs), increasing efficiency of the technology, the dynamic nature of power use etc. In your table, you made the calculation of the land area needed to power the world's needs with wind. A lot of wind generation is offshore. (That means it is not on land. Last year, when in Kent, UK, I was looking at them and wondering how many boats on autopilot sail into them.). Anyhow, nobody is proposing that all of the world's production comes from wind. When the wind blows it allows less fossil fuels to be burnt, and hydro lakes to fill up. You are fighting shadows. Calculating the amount of land needed to power the world by land based wind generation is a stupid calculation.

Yes. These costs still need to be paid. The high build cost, long time planning and building are a definite down side to nuclear which explains why solar will shortly be generating more power than nuclear. I am not creating these costs (but thank you for imagining I might). I agree with this logic, and it is explained in depth by the EIC report (and others) by experts in their field.

The costs have been calculated, and are in the public domain. New nuclear has potential, especially plans to use already depleted uranium. The build costs are real (not imagined) and are a barrier to the new nuclear. There were plans for a new nuclear plant in China, however because the plans were American, Trump's trade war stopped that. (The hope is to restart the plans after the trade war). There is a limited resource of depleted uranium, but nuclear is a valid part of the mix. 

Because you were quoting old data, your "new" nuclear was "new" ten years ago. The new nuclear being spoken about in the 2019 reports I have shared are quite different to the ones you spoke about, are a further improved technology and have different costs. Please show me where I made any fraudulent claim, and I shall unreserved apologize. 

In the meantime, you are being dumb as fuck, promoting the assumed notion that I am anti nuclear (I'm not) and leftist (I'm a centrist, from a global perspective). 

Please confirm that you genuinely think someone (anyone) is proposing to power the planet entirely with wind.

Good to hear that you confirm that you are burning 10 litres of gas a week.  That's just the fuel for your big trucks. (Your fuel use is about 11 litres per 100 km.) Good to hear you are only fucking up the planet a little.

How about your household use? Do you burn gas directly? Or indirectly via one of those antiquated power plants that burn fossil fuel.

(PS: Ever wonder how much concrete is needed to build a nuclear power plant? Or house depleted uranium?)

FFS, this whole discussion is about the insanity of those who worship Greta, when those who use her are proposing a ban to nuclear.  Many of us contend they are frauds and detrimental to the environment, not positive for it.  Clearly, wind/solar have a place, but without harming the environment, it has a very limited potential.  Enter Nuclear, unless you want to put up more dams.  Yes, geothermal and tidal have great potential, too, and I applaud the R&D related to that.

If you want to talk about dumb as fuck, it is those who fawn over Greta and act like she is the second coming, and accept the insane policies they push, and it is also dumb as fuck to rip those of us who point out that fraud.  Great, if you are also pro sensible nuclear, we are on the same page, and you could have saved us hearing all of your condemnation of steaks and big cars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bruce Hudson said:

 

The data I've been working off is from 2019.

Greg's is from 2005.  But hey, nothing changes in composites engineering or power generation/storage, those amazingly static and stable fields.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MR.CLEAN said:

Greg's is from 2005.  But hey, nothing changes in composites engineering or power generation/storage, those amazingly static and stable fields.

Actually, things have changed a lot. Check out the company Bill Gates invested in, which uses depleted uranium (the plans became public in the last few months). Also, over the last 18 months there have been developments increasing the safety of nuclear plant.

Also, the fall in costs for solar is remarkable. New materials (applied like a paint) can be applied to any surface turning it into a solar generator. Not so many remarkable developments in wind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Are you saying that nuclear projects shouldn't be subject to NEPA?  

Nice cherry picking.  I would contend NEPA may actually be sensibly revised in some places.  More importantly, though, is that modern nuclear plants can handle those issues, and the point of the article is why the costs went up so high, and why it is not the case that such high costs are unavoidable with modern nuclear.

 

3 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

The 2016 Vox article is out of date.

Nuclear is now cheaper. Wind and solar are cheaper still.

You're being a dick. You need to face that I am far more up to date than you, and less prone to making stupid assumptions. 

The data I've been working off is from 2019.

Seriously?  Are you contending a 2016 article is so out of date that the point made is irrelevant?  Particularly considering the context of the article is not about current specific costs, but rather the reason why nuclear costs went up so high?  Did that reason somehow fundamentally change in the past three years?  You are trying too hard to ignore just WHY nuclear costs skyrocketed from the 1960s through 2000s, particularly in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Gaucho your figures about wind turbine size / areas are very old. The largest turbines being commercially built are now 12-14 MW monsters, and installed offshore. Land based are getting around 4-6 MW. You don't have to power the whole world with wind power. We do have to reduce emissions and if it's a combination of hydroelectricity, wind, solar, and nuclear that's fine with me.

Interesting article about other countries kept the cost of building new nuclear down - and the US did not. A fragmented utility system (US) versus settling on a few designs and repeating (France/S. Korea).

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11132930/nuclear-power-costs-us-france-korea

 

Getting back to La Vag: they've positioned themselves well. If the cold front dissipates as predicted and the TS Sebastian dissipates they should have a straight shot to the Azores and much nicer conditions broad reaching in light airs.

 

image.png.3af2df18f4c9e4d05b45a2d056dc3a60.png

What is that forecast?

So far, they are running the gauntlet in a "dumbell" system between two lows (the northern one off Newfoundland) and the Sebatien to the south, with a lot of convection along the boundaries.

It is quite obvious why they don't want to sail too fast.

Here is an interesting thing. I screen shotted a few days ago, and then yesterday, and now.

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/uploads/monthly_2019_11/sebastien.thumb.jpg.72bc26e530d08a48036ed02779719b9f.jpg

http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/uploads/monthly_2019_11/image.png.20ac49dd6760314eeed4b7d07ae7502c.png

Both of the lows have been deepening.
19 nov:

 

sebastien.thumb.jpg.82bcfaf4404433d3953e8002f8170c4b.jpg

Yeserday 21 nov:

 

 

727945172_weather21novjpg.thumb.jpg.fb551603a116787d60572d101d7ac415.jpg

 

Today 22 nov:

 

597915283_weather22novjpg.thumb.jpg.d51cf2e2209b20af7c9b005e2ab39897.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GauchoGreg said:

 I would contend NEPA may actually be sensibly revised in some places.  More importantly, though, is that modern nuclear plants can handle those issues, and the point of the article is why the costs went up so high, and why it is not the case that such high costs are unavoidable with modern nuclear.

 

Every law can be sensibly revised in some places, but that's not what I asked.

Yes, nuclear power is expensive when you actually have to protect the environment from it.  I'm sure the japanese didn't have to spend as much on Fukushima Daichi as we would for a similar plant, but I bet they wish they spent more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Seriously?  Are you contending a 2016 article is so out of date that the point made is irrelevant?  Particularly considering the context of the article is not about current specific costs, but rather the reason why nuclear costs went up so high?  Did that reason somehow fundamentally change in the past three years?  You are trying too hard to ignore just WHY nuclear costs skyrocketed from the 1960s through 2000s, particularly in the US.

Yes, and I posted the data why above. (Mr Clean and I wrote our post at the same time) 

New nuclear has reduced in cost you schmuck. (And I said so above).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Bruce Hudson said:

Actually, things have changed a lot. Check out the company Bill Gates invested in, which uses depleted uranium (the plans became public in the last few months). Also, over the last 18 months there have been developments increasing the safety of nuclear plant.

Also, the fall in costs for solar is remarkable. New materials (applied like a paint) can be applied to any surface turning it into a solar generator. Not so many remarkable developments in wind.

I'm going to ignore the BS over the past several pages... I think we can see that we may actually be not that far off from being on the same page.  This post is a good example.  In my work, I have worked with PV farm development, wind farm owners... I have also seen some awesome ideas of where both wind and solar have great potential.  I love concentrating the impact of power generation into smaller ideas.... so, yeah, I like the idea of combined wind/solar farms.  But much of the wind farm options are on wide open agricultural lands, which would have to be taken out of production if the land was to be applied to solar.  But I think we can all agree, now, that we cannot rely on either without other power generation without an unacceptable amount of land dedicated to wind/solar.  From there, I frankly don't give a crap if it is nuclear, geothermal, or tidal (not sure there are any other options), so long as it is not crippling our economy or spoiling our planet in other ways.  Objectively study the options and chose whatever works best in each place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Every law can be sensibly revised in some places, but that's not what I asked.

Yes, nuclear power is expensive when you actually have to protect the environment from it.  I'm sure the japanese didn't have to spend as much on Fukushima Daichi as we would for a similar plant, but I bet they wish they spent more.

Go back to the shallow end, Clean.  You are now even ignoring the valid points being made by those that had been butting heads with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Go back to the shallow end, Clean.  You are now even ignoring the valid points being made by those that had been butting heads with me.

You don't have to answer the question if you are afraid you don't know the answer.  It's ok, I understand insecurity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a screenshot of the ECMWF forecast for about 36 hours from now from the Windy.com web page.

As long as they keep south, the Azores high keeps rebuilding and the lows just truck over top of them.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

I'm going to ignore the BS over the past several pages...

To your detriment. There are several links that will bring you up to date.

And you really need to get more up to date and listen properly to the scientists. (I think Greta said to do that, its a good idea, one that I've been doing since before Greta was born.) What that means is learning to read the most up to date research first.

By the way, Germany is getting rid of their nuclear plants, expanding their power generation with renewables in particular. Good they are getting rid of old problematic technology that are no longer needed. Nobody yet has properly solved what to do with depleted uranium.

---

11 minutes ago, Zonker said:

That's a screenshot of the ECMWF forecast for about 36 hours from now from the Windy.com web page.

As long as they keep south, the Azores high keeps rebuilding and the lows just truck over top of them.

100% agree. If they did that, when they get into the fresh system in a day or so, they can take advantage of a 25 knot southerly. Maybe they'll post some speeds over 10 knots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

You don't have to answer the question if you are afraid you don't know the answer.  It's ok, I understand insecurity.

I did not avoid a question.  The point is why costs went up, and why those elevated costs should not be as high as they have been... as pointed out in the Vox article, which goes along with that I have been discussing.  It is not so much that an environmental regulation must be complied with, it is that the obstruction and constant appeals and resulting unanticipated (and typically frivolous) delays caused costs to increase exponentially, and those issues are truly no longer relevant to current (look at South Korea, France, etc.) and anticipated nuclear plant models (MSR, depleted uranium, ..... and even ... if the Skunkworks are to be believed, fusion some day). 

A good example of a frivolous delay was one time the wrong part was ordered in the construction of Diablo Canyon.  The mistake was due to the fact that the plant has two reactors, mirror image designs, and because of that a part was backwards.  The part was never installed, there was never a problem, nothing was broken or damaged, there was never a threat.  But the anti-nuke crusaders caught wind of it and blew it out of proportion, and forced delays as the issue was studied. 

But hey, Clean, do you agree with the fuckwits that say nuclear has no place in future energy policy?  That is what this has all been about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

 

But hey, Clean, do you agree with the fuckwits that say nuclear has no place in future energy policy?  That is what this has all been about.

Not at all.  I spent much of my childhood in France where it is a way of life, and I'm relatively comfortable about it.  Nuclear power is pretty safe as long as the people building and running it are responsible people following responsible regulations that address the true long-term costs of all parts of the process.

You still didn't answer the question though.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Nobody yet has solved what to do with depleted uranium

Yes, they has. The US made lots of 30mm rounds for A-10 aircraft and 120mm for Abrams tanks. Now they are thinking it wasn't the best idea ever.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30045/pentagon-may-scrap-35-million-depleted-uranium-rounds-used-by-the-a-10-warthogs-gun

 

The U.S. military is looking into what it would take to dismantle and dispose of more than 35,000,000 rounds of ammunition with depleted uranium cores, predominantly 30mm shells for the iconic GAU-8/A Avenger cannon on the A-10 Warthog ground-attack aircraft. This comes more than a year after the U.S. Air Force revealed it was looking into the possibility of stopping using these controversial rounds for good.

The U.S. Army is managing the potential "demilitarization and disposal" of the depleted uranium (DU) ammunition, which also includes hundreds of thousands of 105mm and 120mm armor-piercing tank shells....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s stay on topic, shall we? Saving the planet by sailing luxury catamarans is the topic.

Otherwise we will end up in the cesspool of PA. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

To your detriment. There are several links that will bring you up to date.

And you really need to get more up to date and listen properly to the scientists. (I think Greta said to do that, its a good idea, one that I've been doing since before Greta was born.) What that means is learning to read the most up to date research first.

By the way, Germany is getting rid of their nuclear plants, expanding their power generation with renewables in particular. Good they are getting rid of old problematic technology that are no longer needed. Nobody yet has solved what to do with depleted uranium.

---

100% agree. If they did that, when they get into the fresh system in a day or so, they can take advantage of a 25 knot southerly. Maybe they'll post some speeds over 10 knots.

Well, that did not last long (a reasoned discussion).  You are too caught up on the dates of publications when the points being made are not even reliant on, or focused on, any change over that time.  It is a weak tactic.  For instance, whether wind/solar would require 7.5 million square miles, or 3.75 million square miles, neither is acceptable or sustainable.  And the date of publication has no factor relative to analysis of what happened in the past. My point has always been about the limitations of wind/solar, not that it has no place.  You have now acknowledged the limitations I have pointed out, and now even recognize that nuclear has a significant place in sensible energy policy.  Too bad those who worship Greta can't recognize the policy of those who are propping her up sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Saint Greta said:

Let’s stay on topic, shall we? Saving the planet by sailing luxury catamarans is the topic.

Otherwise we will end up in the cesspool of PA. 

 

Absolutely, I'm looking forward to 2,000,000 of those things cris-crossing the Atlantic at any point in time.  What could possibly go wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

Not at all.  I spent much of my childhood in France where it is a way of life, and I'm relatively comfortable about it.  Nuclear power is pretty safe as long as the people building and running it are responsible people following responsible regulations that address the true long-term costs of all parts of the process.

You still didn't answer the question though.

Good, I'm glad to hear you are sensible, unlike the tools that are fawning over Greta and AOC, and their insane ban.

By the way, I thought I did answer your question.  Go back and read.  Not sure what I missed.  If you are wondering if NEPA should be complied with, I thought I implied it should, but that NEPA may be due for revisions, too.  I hope that answers your question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GauchoGreg said:

Absolutely, I'm looking forward to 2,000,000 of those things cris-crossing the Atlantic at any point in time.  What could possibly go wrong?

Just wondering, all you sailors out there, my skipper spends a lot of time communicating with some weather guru and then adjusting our speed and angle. 

Are these services free? 

And when millions of sailboats take to the oceans to replace the carbon dioxide spewing jet planes, how will we manage?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Zonker said:

Yes, they has. The US made lots of 30mm rounds for A-10 aircraft and 120mm for Abrams tanks. Now they are thinking it wasn't the best idea ever.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30045/pentagon-may-scrap-35-million-depleted-uranium-rounds-used-by-the-a-10-warthogs-gun

 

The U.S. military is looking into what it would take to dismantle and dispose of more than 35,000,000 rounds of ammunition with depleted uranium cores, predominantly 30mm shells for the iconic GAU-8/A Avenger cannon on the A-10 Warthog ground-attack aircraft. This comes more than a year after the U.S. Air Force revealed it was looking into the possibility of stopping using these controversial rounds for good.

The U.S. Army is managing the potential "demilitarization and disposal" of the depleted uranium (DU) ammunition, which also includes hundreds of thousands of 105mm and 120mm armor-piercing tank shells....

 

THere was a sailor named Eric who had an idea abouot DU too. It caused a lot of upsetness.

Funny that.

Army does it anyway.

Now they "wish" they hadn't.

This goes right back to my default childhood position: "humans can't be trusted."

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GauchoGreg said:

Seriously?  Are you contending a 2016 article is so out of date that the point made is irrelevant?  Particularly considering the context of the article is not about current specific costs, but rather the reason why nuclear costs went up so high?  Did that reason somehow fundamentally change in the past three years?  You are trying too hard to ignore just WHY nuclear costs skyrocketed from the 1960s through 2000s, particularly in the US.

Then contradicted himself:

46 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

and those issues are truly no longer relevant to current (look at South Korea, France, etc.) and anticipated nuclear plant models

then:

46 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

But hey, Clean, do you agree with the fuckwits that say nuclear has no place in future energy policy?  That is what this has all been about.

So when you said:

On 11/21/2019 at 11:18 AM, GauchoGreg said:

For reference, wind is somewhere between $40-$80/mwh, but ignores the issues of erratic production that requires other energy being produced on a consistent basis (currently gas & coal), and the subjective impacts blanketing landscapes and nearshore seas.  It also ignores that much of the prime locations are already developed.  Utility-scale solar PV are at around $50–$75/MWh.  So, clearly, the next wave of nuclear would be competitive and provide some real advantages.

It didn't matter?

Because GauchoGreg used out of date data, then made the stupid claim that "clearly" new nuclear tech is gonna be the next big thing (when it is anything but clear), I realised that GauchoGreg was promoting his misinformation. (I'm here to get info about Greta's Atlantic crossing, been working on misinformation for a few years where climate change and power use has figured large etc, so when GauchoGreg takes a dump here promoting false claims just like the stuff found on places like PragerU, I'm gonna get triggered.)

39 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

For instance, whether wind/solar would require 7.5 million square miles, or 3.75 million square miles, neither is acceptable or sustainable. 

Classic example of BS as it is neither 3.75 or 7.7 million sq miles.

The figure for 18 TW of power (how much the world currently uses) for solar is about 140,000 sq miles. The calculation can be found here. I just posted it above, so @GauchoGreg is being more than a little arrogant by not reading it (then telling others to go learn!). Maybe he is more concerned about protecting his ego than learning something himself. (Am I getting through to you yet GauchoGreg???) Maybe he is deliberately misinforming.

So did GauchoGreg get it wrong deliberately?

Either way, I'm calling BS on this obvious BS.

---

I'd be happy to go back to talking about Greta, so long as GaucoGreg stops posting misinformation here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, GauchoGreg said:

Good, I'm glad to hear you are sensible, unlike the tools that are fawning over Greta and AOC, and their insane ban.

 By the way, I thought I did answer your question.  Go back and read.  Not sure what I missed.  If you are wondering if NEPA should be complied with, I thought I implied it should, but that NEPA may be due for revisions, too.  I hope that answers your question.

sorry, I missed the implication. Didn't miss the straw man though; who's fawning here? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Saint Greta said:

Just wondering, all you sailors out there, my skipper spends a lot of time communicating with some weather guru and then adjusting our speed and angle. 

Are these services free? 

yep, free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Because GauchoGreg used out of date data, then made the stupid claim that "clearly" new nuclear tech is gonna be the next big thing

It's right behind clean coal as the ENERGY OF THE FUTURE!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Bruce Hudson said:

Then contradicted himself:

then:

So when you said:

It didn't matter?

Because GauchoGreg used out of date data, then made the stupid claim that "clearly" new nuclear tech is gonna be the next big thing (when it is anything but clear), I realised that you were misinformed and promoting your misinformation. (I'm here to get info about Greta's Atlantic crossing, been working on misinformation for a few years where climate change and power use has figured large etc, so when GauchoGreg takes a dump here promoting false claims just like the stuff found on places like PragerU, I'm gonna get triggered.)

Classic example of BS as it is neither.

The figure for 18 TW of power (how much the world currently uses) for solar is about 140,000 sq miles. The calculation can be found here. I just posted it above, so @GauchoGreg is being more than a little arrogant by not reading it (telling others to go learn!). Maybe he is more concerned about protecting his ego than learning something himself. (Am I getting through to you yet GauchoGreg???) Maybe he is deliberately misinforming.

So did GauchoGreg get it wrong deliberately?

Either way, I'm calling BS on this obvious BS.

---

I'd be happy to go back to talking about Greta, so long as GaucoGreg stops posting misinformation here.

Again, you are trying way too hard, as you have been, to cherry pick / nit-pick specific figures to try and undermine more fundamental points I'm making.  You are an insufferable type I could see being a whole lot of fun to hang with.  But, fine, I will accept your figures.  I requested you check my math for a reason, I was not confident that I had everything nailed down... there are a lot of moving parts, and I did not just want to accept someone else's info, I have no ego problem and welcome being pointed out when I am wrong. 

I read the article... not sure if that study is without error... such as, I'm not sure if they are fully accounting for factors like Solar PV capacity (varies based on location and technology, from 17-28%).  EDIT.... just re-read and saw they did cover that.... Not sure if that considers inconsistent power and therefore necessitate effectively at least doubling that amount of land on different parts of the world and employ an integrated grid to transmit the power from where the sun is shining to where it is not.  But, fine, I'll accept it.  So, you are cool with covering 140,000 square miles with solar panels, and however much with wind turbines.  Screw those places like the Steens Mountain, places like I linked to where sensitive bird habitats have been dramatically impacted?  My guess is you would say no.  You have already admitted we should not just rely on wind/solar, and you have already admitted nuclear can be good.

So, how do your criticisms of my points change my overarching criticism of the idea nuclear should be banned?

Do you want to ignore that point... a point you already agreed to (that nuclear should not be banned)... for some continued effort to make what point?  The point of this has been that those who have been holding up Greta as some profit, or inspiration, or brave sage of enlightened thinking, are tools of those who would profoundly hurt us if their policy were to be implemented. The policy she is promoting is wack, having her tell us "how dare you" was wack, and claiming those who contest her, and them, are fat angry white men is wack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites