GauchoGreg

Members
  • Content Count

    5,292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by GauchoGreg

  1. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    This has been my issue with Bruce. It is frustrating because it is clear he is actually not a full-blown anti nuke dolt like some of those who have posted on this thread, but rather he nit-picks shit with claims that a point is false because of some minor element of the point, and ignores the broader points being made. It really is annoying. When he simply discusses the issues, he can be interesting and informative to discuss the issue with.
  2. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Talk about a bogus visual. First of all, clearly, you can't have our worldwide power placed in the Australian Outback (can you imagine the storage/transmission losses). Second, the rest of the world does not have the Outback's solar energy (if that is assumed). Third, my guess is that the visual is relative to an average overall energy demand and average overall solar energy supply.... and unless insane advancements are made on the storage front (other than environmentally damaging projects like pumping water from low to high lakes during off-demand times and when the sun is shining brightly), the actual area needed has to be dramatically higher to handle the high-demand times and deal with low solar energy times. When all that is considered, my guess is the land demand would be more likely akin to he entire continent, not just some sparsely populated area of wasteland... and even spread out worldwide, an area that huge would have dramatic impacts on a hell of a lot of sensitive habitats and beautiful wild spaces. Now, of course, there is a hell of a lot of land and building that could support wind/solar energy development efficiently and without major negative consequences, this should be a major component of reasoning what power sources we should rely on in the future.
  3. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Possibly the best post of this entire thread. The point about the volume of nuclear fuel to be stored relative to the commitment of land & sea to wind & solar is outstanding. The "spent" fuel from each nuclear plant can easily be handled within the envelope of each nuclear plant on an indefinite basis with simple bunkers or buildings, glass-beading, and lead-lined caskets. And if we were not so damned obstructed by the greenies, we could easily utilize the massive voids created by mining to store it, if we needed to, even if there never was reprocessing/recycling... as the amount of material taken out of the ground by mining is exponentially larger than the volume of the fuels and caskets to be stored. Your point that it (the "spent" fuel issue) is a red herring, is spot on, since the same people are full-blown cool with committing thousands and thousands of acres to wind & solar farms (with their own environmental issues such as fires, harm to sensitive habitats and species, and blight on vistas and recreation.
  4. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    As we keep saying, there are reasonable actions to handle it, and despite your earlier claim, the volume of fuel is totally manageable, particularly when you consider what can and will eventually be available if people stop obstructing the industry and only pushing wind/solar. By the way, just read a story about how a 800-1000' wind turbine concept is being researched.... but is not currently feasible.... same thing can be said for some nuclear options, while other nuclear options are already available but not allowed in places, or are made so damned expensive due to opposition that they are not being pursued now that wind/solar is being promoted (and often subsidized), and taking advantage of the easiest/cheapest sites, first. Sure, we have huge potential for rooftop power production that is hardly been tapped, and should be tapped, but we still have to deal with much of the world being shitty for capturing solar energy, and its erratic power. No shit. Like I have been saying, the Left has been highly effective at driving up the costs of nuclear, and politically obstructing it. That does not make it a good thing.
  5. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    " based on current practices " No one is advocating that we stick to current practices. Look at where the obstructions have come from regarding different forms of waste handling, as well as reprocessing/recycling. The anti-nuke movement is just that, ANTI-Nuke, not anti current practices... they want the entire industry scuttled. Just look at the arguments we see against nuke, they are never based on reason/science and advocating for improvements in practices, but rather always on some vague, dreamy, "we need to look beyond nuke" as if their "beyond" comes with no negative consequences of their own (costs, landscape blight & impact on sensitive habitats and creatures, erratic power production, centralized production and long transmission, etc.). They never differentiate between yester-year's plant designs and modern fission designs, let alone designs on the horizon (MSR, Thorium, depleted uranium, fusion, etc.).
  6. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    No, the point is that we are going to be managing and dealing with "spent" fuel regardless of whether you like it or not, whether we blanket every last acre of wild/scenic landscape and seas with wind turbines and solar farms or not. Maybe rather than irrationally ignoring that there remains a great resource of energy and the fact we are going to be managing radioactive material anyway, maybe we should actually do things to reduce the stockpile, retain some areas of scenic/environmentally-sensitive/recreational value without PV panels & 500'+ tall whirling monsters. The problem is people behind Greta promoting 'NO NUCLEAR' rather than using reason and science to utilize the best-suited power as much as possible, to create as much power as possible, as cleanly as possible, so that our prosperity is maximized along with the least impact on the environment. It is an irrational, quasi-religious position to blanket-ban nuclear (clearly ignoring that "nuclear" covers a vast array of concepts with little similarities), and that is the thing most of us are fed up with when we hear that little puppet (no fault of her own as a 16-yo) try to shame us while pumping the GND and its Euro equivalent. So, since we are already committed to managing nuclear materials for the long haul, the additional burden relative to volume is a small issue relative to the bigger issue of how do we best protect our environment AND maximize our prosperity, rather than some druid-like attitude that we should deprive ourselves of prosperity as if that is a value in itself, while relying on only a few "acceptable" power sources.
  7. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Exactly, encapsulated in glass and held in lead-lined caskets for temporary storage, but long-term reprocessing and re-using is the thing. But still, like you said, the total VOLUME of "spent" fuel is absolutely manageable, and really, the best thing is to retain at the sites of power plants for eventual re-use. The volume of fuel to be stored at any given power plant is very small, and could easily be kept on site, eliminating the need for transportation or dealing with NIMBY types along transportation corridors and storage facilities. Again, though, every time someone goes full-anti-nuke, it is ALWAYS based on emotions and lack of reason. At least Bruce bases his hesitation (he is not anti-nuke) on economics, which is at least based on reason. But the economics are truly only an issue because of the opposition.
  8. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Certainly there is more going on. By the way, I do not doubt that solar and wind can be cost effective, or more affordable, for a variety of reasons. Particularly over the past 10-20 years. But that ignores a few factors... the cheap/obvious locations are the first to be used, but as we would have to accelerate (dramatically) development of wind/solar farms to replace coal/gas, more expensive and less "perfect" sites will have to be used.... and higher transmission losses/costs will be incurred, particularly for grid-based power necessary for industrial and urban applications. Another place where it (solar, specifically) can be relatively affordable is place-of-use generation (rooftops, etc.), but that will still leave a huge gap in energy needed due to the low-grade energy nature of solar, when considering the need for that place of use (a house, as an example), transportation, and industry as we transition transportation fleets to electric and population grows. Offsetting that, true, is the reduction PV panels. By the way, I do wish more focus was placed on diesel as a great option for reducing CO2 emissions. Modern diesel powered vehicles should easily outpace electric or hybrid in net emissions when the electricity is largely coal & gas.
  9. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Too funny, I was just about to site that story.
  10. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    By the way, Westinghouse named as the primary reason for their bankruptcy the delays going through regulatory hurdles (which are directly related enviro-based opposition and government largess.
  11. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Do you read? " But by July 2012, the reactors had run into over $800 million in extra charges related to licensing delays. " Yes, the environmental movement is the primary cause for delays and increased costs. The Westinghouse bankruptcy, as stated in the story, compounded problems, rather than being the problem, as it says in the story that the project had "been plagued by delays and spiraling costs, compounded when the main contractor filed for bankruptcy". I would love to see how much wind or solar would cost if every step of the process someone was filing lawsuits and getting court delays. As the now famous co-founder of Greenpeace has indicated in his regret over the organizations blanket opposition to nuclear power originally founded on their commingling concerns over nuclear weapons and civilian electricity production, their effective obstruction of nuclear power is very significant in stalling what could have been a fundamental decrease in what we now have in CO2 emissions had nuclear been more prominent in our energy production rather than coal and gas.
  12. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Again, you are ignoring the impact of green-based opposition to nuclear in the insane cost explosion of developing nuclear plants. It is truly circular logic. The delays for the plant development were almost exclusively due to opposition, and those delays and their associated costs, are the overwhelming share of the cost overruns. Cheap nuclear is not a pipe dream if we can get people to use reason.
  13. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Certainly both sides are plenty idiotic. Too many ignoring the threat of global warming on the one side (I find it painfully idiotic, as a Conservative, that "my side" does not recognize the opportunity of promoting a "better mouse trap"). And too many on the other side opting to dramatically increase the cost of energy or jumping to "solutions" that often do relate to a reduction in quality of life (such as destroying people for wanting a bigger car... which may be used to tow a boat, or take a bunch of kids to a lacrosse game in one rig rather than 5 little cars). There are plenty of solutions that can satisfy both sides if reason is the focus, rather than pre-conceived, prejudiced notions. Transportation is a huge source of global CO2 emissions, and it can be dramatically curtailed if transitioned to electricity so long as the electricity is sourced intelligently, and it (transportation) can still involve good sized cars utilizing cleanly sourced electricity. But we do have to be smart about how that electricity is sourced so as to not have it so expensive or swap one environmental degradation for another.
  14. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    I will try to see that documentary on Gates.... I do find that kind of thing fascinating. Forgive me, I should have been more clear regarding desalination, the only way to power high-volume desalination without large amounts of land dedicated to the desalination process or the power needed for the desalination process, is by using nuclear (I suppose natural gas or coal would work, too, but kind of defeating part of the purpose). Absolutely, there are other ways to desalinate water, some very efficiently, but they typically require a great deal of land. By the way, this may be dated, but still interesting:https://www.aiche.org/chenected/2015/07/solar-desalination-saves-cropland-californias-central-valley One use I heard for using the brine from desal was to use it to create drywall, I believe. Anyway, I hope my point is coming across that my main issue has always been the lack of reason behind banning any power source and promoting another. If reason is foremost, rather than fear or other irrational motivations, then I'm good with any power source. But I do not believe we should WANT to reduce our quality of life, or degrade the environment in one place in favor of the environment somewhere else if it is not necessary.
  15. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    My response? Coal has its place, and there are some very interesting prospects for capturing and using carbon emitted from coal burning... but I do not claim to have researched or understand it. I do believe prudent use of coal in advanced coal power plants will remain a significant component of a smart energy program that results in decreased overall CO2 emissions. But I am a proponent of decreasing our dependence on it, as is reasoned and logical in a comprehensive energy plan that considers emissions, other environmental considerations (land usage), and the economy.
  16. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    FACT: opposition to nuclear power has driven huge delay (which costs tons of money), legal fees (dealing with appeals, etc.), insurance costs, and financing costs. There is no way, in an apples-apples manner to fully quantify that added cost, but it is clearly very real, and clearly the major component of the run up of costs (almost all other technology goes down in cost if not thrown FUBAR by politics). Sorry if that does not satisfy your linear thinking of studies, but tough. As for waste, the total volume of destabilized nuclear fuel is relatively tiny. In most cases, the best option is simply to retain on site in pools and/or glass-beaded and kept in lead-lined coffins until it re-stabilizes and can again be used. But if it must be moved, it can again easily be kept in containers and sent to centralized storage places, such as man-made bunkers or salt mines, etc. Again, this is an issue that was created by the anti-nuclear movement, doing all they could do to scuttle the industry, rather than fundamental challenges dealing with the "waste".
  17. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Don't leave (don't ban him, Clean).... we would be hopeless/helpless without your marching orders. Sheesh....
  18. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    AGAIN, you utilize elevated costs for nuclear created by "green" opposition to oppose nuclear in favor of the "green" favored systems. I love that circular logic. My debate points are that the Green opposition to nuclear is what is as wrong as anything, not that wind/solar are inherently bad, and certainly not that nuclear is the only option. I believe that there are good applications for all of these energy sources, and that even includes gas & coal once we have gotten a grip on total emissions. What I do like about nuclear is the incredibly small footprint it requires for the energy produced. It does not require huge swaths of land or sea, it does not require damming rivers. In a tiny footprint, it provides no-emission energy as needed, when needed, and with a nearly endless potential for increased power with limited additional demand of land &/or sea. I have no dog in the fight other than I love nature (big fisherman and hunter), love the seas (surfer, sailor, diver, fisherman), and own my own business. I do not want, nor do I want to force others to drive shitty little cars or have smaller houses than they may otherwise want. I also want global CO2 emissions to be reduced as quickly as possible in the event that the warnings of anthropomorphic global warming is as big of a threat that it appears it may be, and I want our rivers to be fuller and healthier for human kind and nature. EDIT: I understand there are manners to desal with solar, and they can be great at times, but again, high land demands, so not great for many desal applications and in many places.... can be counter-productive.
  19. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    This is a good reasoned post, but some significant points. As for Hydro... I'm not a fan as for supplying additional power to replace coal/gas for several reasons. First, it cuts off / obliterates spawning grounds and dramatically hinders migrations for anadromous fish (salmon, steelhead, sturgeon, etc.). It also covers farm & forest lands, results in water loss to evaporation, forces relocations, etc. The logical places for dams have already been used, and there is logical pressure to decommission dams to help with fish populations. So, the future for hydro is hopefully not one involving increased dams. I do believe there is significant opportunities for in-stream turbines and wheels that may tap the energy of moving water without dams. As for wind/solar energy, there have been many wind/solar farms proposed for sensitive wildlands and wetlands which would not only have been eyesores and counter to the environmental good of those areas (see Steens Mountain in Oregon, and wetlands in the Southeast). Again, as with dams, much of the logical places have already been used. I'm not opposed to more wind/solar energy when logically located, but I do oppose huge swaths of land being used for erratic energy. As for Nuclear, the increased costs, as have been discussed, are due almost entirely to the opposition by the environmental community... which has resulted in massive delays, increased construction / financing / legal costs, etc. The costs per KwH before the environmental community paralyzed the industry was very competitive, and as the technology has matured, the costs would absolutely be competitive if the blanket opposition from the green community was alleviated. A good example is the opposition the greenies put on even recycling "spent" (meaning temporarily unstable) uranium, which led to both need for more uranium, but higher costs. But the new molten salt designs and other designs on the horizon are extremely promising and should be encouraged/pursued just as strongly as wind, solar, tidal & geothermal. And until those are perfected, modern conventional plants are absolutely great when not place on fault lines (duh) and given a break from the far left attacks. As for efficiency and waste... sure, we can and should do better, but it should not be ignored that worldwide energy demand will still be growing, and we should not paralyze ourselves, or ruin our economies, in subjecting to insanity like the Green New Deal, banning nuclear, while China, India, and other developing nations increase their impact. Far better to reduce our negative impact as quickly as possible IN A LOGICAL/REASONED manner through using options like nuclear to get us off coal, rather than banning it in some quasi-religious manner. Nor do we need to be druids and reduce our quality of life through reducing our total energy production in some idiocy that we think we are helping anything.
  20. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    It is not scalable to handle industry and urban needs without unacceptable coverage of the landscape with wind/solar farms keeping up with population growth and industrialization of developing countries, allowing for more power production to cover transitioning to electric-based transportation, supplying the power needed for desalination to clean up sterilized agricultural lands and expand agriculture where needed for population growth, etc..... And the better question is why not modern nuclear? Because it is not part of your religion?
  21. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    So, those people are replacing gas/coal on society-wide basis, supplying power to residents/businesses, as well as powering the utilities (water purification, waste management, etc.) in urban areas and for industrial uses? Wow, I had not heard that was occurring. Don't be a tool... yes, people can go off-grid given the money and land to have power production and storage on-site. And, yes, some small villages can produce more power then their houses need (although the erratic power typically requires them to be linked to the grid). But the tech is not anywhere near there to replace coal/gas on a society-wide basis.... and the physics of it is not promising with the anticipated population growth through to the point of stabilized worldwide population unless every damned bit of open landscape is covered by wind/solar farms. OR We could just opt to replace coal/gas (coal sooner, gas later) with nuclear power (modern, safe, clean nuclear options), wind/solar where logical and without obliterating wild/scenic places, and geothermal & tidal (although the latter two are still challenging). But the Leftists don't like nuclear, not because of logical arguments, not because of reason, but rather because it is not part of their religion, and use bogus arguments (such as the circular reasoning about it being expensive because their opposition to it makes it expensive). Now, carry on toting the water for the greenies.
  22. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Awaiting my orders, sir.
  23. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    This +1000 He ignores logic, instead nitpicking minor points in an effort to derail the context of an argument. Wind & Solar are not capable of handling the substitution for gas/coal without unacceptable coverage of our lands/seas with wind/solar farms and erratic power production .... something he knows, but will ignore that point with a 10,000-word commentary on the use of a stat from a study that is 2 years older than a newer study that does not contradict that point insinuating that the point is not valid. The point remains valid... wind/solar cannot serve as a substitute for coal/gas without unacceptable consequences, and those like Greta's handles and the extreme left green movement are harmful to society AND the environment by opting for druid-like obsession over their pie-in-sky ideologically driven options. Worst is that Bruce knows this and rather than discuss points reasonably, he goes off on his super arrogant dissertations. As I have said, he can't possibly be married... I know of no person that could handle that kind of personality. Anyway, anyone see where Daddy has been writing Greta's Facebook posts? Shocking, right?
  24. GauchoGreg

    Sydney to Hobart 2019

    Absolutely. As a local regatta, it may be more appealing to those competing, and their family/friends. But for anyone else, this race has been looked at as one of the cutting edge races for ocean racing monohulls the world over. That may, or is likely, to fade away. Why would anyone outside of Australia give a damn?
  25. GauchoGreg

    Sydney to Hobart 2019

    I have to wonder about the future of this race as far as being notable outside of Australia. It is extremely unlikely anyone goes into a new build of a boat to compete for line honors with the 100' non-foiling mono restrictions, so how long will it remain interesting to see the few boats capable of winning be the only ones to look forward to follow? Sit still and die. This is the first year I could hardly give a damn, did not even bother to follow and simply remembered that it had happened, and then checked to see who won. Quite different than my interest level for who knows how long. I'm not going to bother singing the praises of opening it up to multis, or anything else.... they can do whatever they want.... but I do wonder how many are like me, and just don't give a crap anymore.