GauchoGreg

Members
  • Content Count

    5,292
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by GauchoGreg

  1. GauchoGreg

    Ultime / G-Class Development

    I forget where, but I think it was in the thread where Gitana had its first failures due to cavitation wear on the foils, but I think it came up where rubbery material actually held up better against cavitation than super hard materials.
  2. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Get it right, gaddamit, it is "Climate Catastrophe"... the latest focus group liked it best.
  3. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Well, you know, Bananas are now endangered species (http://theconversation.com/the-quest-to-save-the-banana-from-extinction-112256... not sure if is due to Climate Catastrophe or not, but let's just run with that)... that performance artist should be prosecuted for high crimes against the environment, not to mention having incredibly poor taste in art. Good point about the 1st Coming, though.
  4. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    I didn't know what to do this morning with my breakfast. My English muffin had a clear image of Greta before I smothered her with bacon, eggs, and cheese and I wolfed her down. I wonder how long it will be until someone finds the 'Shroud of Greta', or the Holy Hydro-Flask Greta dranketh from. Clearly she is the 2nd coming, but who was the 1st coming? AlGore?
  5. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    ^Awesome!
  6. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    No, it is about him being insufferable about ignoring points and focusing on the irrelevant details then claiming "victory" because a study/story was published in 2016 rather than 2019, or because the insane New Green Deal was identified as the Green New Deal (or whatever the hell it is), ..... as Fastyacht points out: "internet one-upsmanship of pseudointellectiual might". A great example is that he has actually admitted that nuclear has a critical place in logical energy policy, but then focused on bullshit to make a bogus claim of rhetorical victory and higher understanding... but ignoring that the American / European / ANZAC Left (which is clearly what is part of, and highlighted by lovely little tools like Greta) are totally opposed to nuclear, regardless of what they SAY. The proof is in the pudding (regardless of what is in their current proposals) ... they oppose everything, and NEVER promote anything, that involves nuclear. Instead, it is entirely a focus on "green" energy (wind & solar), but ignore that those options absolutely do have extreme impacts, depending on their application (most notably land/sea coverage), and the diffuse nature of the energy limits its overall potential to replace existing carbon-based energy, let alone INCREASE energy production, which could dramatically improve our quality of life. He will jump on "gotcha" bullshit about the date of a study but ignore the greater point. My comment about marriage is that to be in a healthy marriage, you have to be able to work with your spouse's point rather than pick at a minor flaw in her/his details, as often the point is valid even if the context is flawed. Doing the former (don't sweat the details and recognize the validity of the point) will lead to smoothly working through issues, while doing the latter (nit-pick crap while ignoring the point) will make the spouse say fuck-the-hell-off.
  7. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    ^ This guy can't possibly be married.
  8. GauchoGreg

    Brest Atlantiques 2019

    The race was not boring for the first 2 legs, that's for sure. If not for the problem with UFOs, you can bet that you would not be calling the race boring. Really too bad Sodebo had to abandon. But really, this is no more boring that 90% of open ocean races (I see the Volvo as boring with the follow-the-leader identical boats, even if the racing is close on many legs).
  9. GauchoGreg

    Sodebo Ultim 3

    Now that Sodebo 3 is officially out of the barn and out on the water, maybe time to spin off its own thread, rather than talking about her in the Ultim Development thread. And to kick it off, a video:
  10. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    NGD, GND, BFD, it all sucks, But anyway, the fact sheet was clear with the ban, as I quoted, and many jumped on before the "final draft" (if it can be called that) left the ban out, but also clearly omitted any place for nuclear. Further, two of the three front runners (Warren & Sanders) are explicit in banning nuclear. Booker and Yang I believe are the only candidates that have left room for new plants, Mayor Pete allows the existing to remain. I did not claim there is a proposal to generate power from wind and solar alone, but those are the only two options currently being pushed for grid-scale power.
  11. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    The intent is clear in their fact sheet: " "A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants," read a fact sheet posted on the homepage of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). "It's unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible." " I would take that to mean a ban. And I believe every one of the remaining candidates (possibly excepting Bloomberg, if he is announced) have endorsed/supported the NGD. Further, Warren specifically called a ban on nuclear, as did Bernie Sanders. This can should not be kicked down the field any more if anyone is serious about reducing our CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions.
  12. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    It is not a lark. The New Green Deal stipulates it be banned, and some of the current idiotic presidential candidates have declared their support for that plan (as did St. Greta), while others have implicitly or explicitly declared nuclear banned under their energy policy. And while not banning the power, pretty much the rest of our politicians (including Obama and Trump) have not really supported, to any notable degree, driving forward new nuclear while they pump money into solar, wind and gas. As you state, we cannot rely on only solar and wind, and we should decommission much of our current nuclear, coal, and even hydro... so that leaves us with a major gap to fill. Banning the best option for that gap, or demagoguing those who support it, are hardly answers.
  13. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Thanks for the correction... I'm not one to whine about spelling/grammar corrections. But meh, about the strawmen.
  14. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    Well, clearly The Ed was. And that started this.
  15. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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.
  16. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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.
  17. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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?
  18. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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.
  19. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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.
  20. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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.
  21. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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.
  22. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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. 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.
  23. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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.
  24. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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.
  25. GauchoGreg

    Greta Rides Again?

    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".