On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:53:12 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:28:38 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
> > On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
> > >>> an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
> > >>> don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
> > >>> put into storage. During those times security can be increased.
> > >
> > >> What's the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using the electricity, right?
> > >
> > > Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
> > > plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.
> Dream on. Uranium fissions into elements with atomic weights closer to 120. Some of the fission products are stable. Lots of them are radioactive.
>
> Technicium has five isotopes with atomic weights from 95 to 99. They are all radioactive which makes technicium the lightest element with no stable isotopes
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium
>
> Most people have heard of Cobalt-60, which also shows up in nuclear reactor waste. There are lots of others.
> > > If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
> > > alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.
> Lead and arsenic have stable isotopes which are lethal without being radioactive. Reprocessing fuel to take out the radioactive isotope waste is an expensive idea, and you are still stuck with the long-lived radioactive isotopes, which aren't all that useful. Taking out the U-235 and Pu-239 would make sense, but you can use them to make bombs as well as regular nuclear reactors, which does frighten politicians.
>
> The molten salt thorium reactor fans make a lot of fuss about the absence of plutonium, but U-233 can be used to make bombs in much the same way as plutonium. They cheerfully ignore the radioactive fission products, as you have done above.

Thorium-232 is fertile, but isn't the U-233 the fissile part that is burned up to power the reactor? So how much U-233 would be left? I was under the impression that in a molten salt reactor the fuel is continuously cleaned of the troublesome isotopes and new fuel is fed in. I know there are a number of types, but they don't all get loaded once and used until they burn up the fuel.

--

Rick C.

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

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
> >>>>> On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>
> >>> <snip>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
> >>>>>> the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
> >>>>>> smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
> >>>>>> Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
> >>>>>> has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
> >>>>>> weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
> >>>>>> masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
> >>>>>> engine I hope to build in my backyard won't come for free :D.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
> >>>>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem
> >>>>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem..)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
> >>>>> while we also work on short term solutions.
> >>>
> >>> Only if you haven't bothered to think how much you a re going to have to charge for each kilowatt hour of energy you sell to your customers to let you make a profit.
> >>>
> >>>> It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to over-regulation,
> >>>> like Jeroen suggested.
> >>>
> >>> Then again some twenty of France's 56 nuclear reactors were all shut down for a while recently while mistakes in the original build were corrected, Nuclear plants have got more expensive recently because we've learned more about how they can go wrong. Solving problems that you can anticipate is cheaper that solving them after they've made themselves obvious, but it isn't free,
> >>>
> >>>> Then the word "nuclear" still spells suicide for many if not all politicians - which is the biggest problem, after decades of training the public to perceive the word like this now is pay time.
> >>>
> >>> It's taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing with long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated. They haven't been by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up a repository for long term storage - several hundreds of thousands of years - and they may never succeed. Not in my backyard is a potent slogan.
> >>>
> >>>> But we have no other sane option, we have to start building now indeed and cover by short term solutions.
> >>>
> >>> The Australian power generation industry doesn't see it that way. They are building new solar farms and new wind turbines at a great rate, because they produce electricity more cheaply than any other source and quite a bit more cheaply than nuclear plants. They are starting to invest grid-scale batteries, and the Australian Federal Government is in the process of extending our biggest hydroelectric scheme to offer a lot of pumped storage.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
> >>>
> >>> The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels.
> >>>
> >> Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
> >> have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
> >> pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
> >> the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
> >> it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
> >> simply because there is not as much sun.
> >
> > There's actually more in your summer.
> No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
> have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
> hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
> Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
> steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.
>
> And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
> some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going
> for half the year.
> > And wind power works pretty much everywhere.
> It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
> middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
> plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills,
> and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
> of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of
> our hills). And people don't want them there.
>
> There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
> even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
> sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available..

Sounds like Norway is pretty screwed. I suggest you limit your population, "one child" policy sounds like a good idea. Free up some space and live like you are in Texas.

> (We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
> wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
> Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
> or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
> with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
> electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity
> generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
> but it's hard to convince some people.)

No one? Not even when they are cold and in the dark? So you think they'd rather see cooling towers or large plumes of coal smoke?

It is easy to stop exporting electricity, pay more for it and they will sell it to you instead of importing!

> >> Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
> >> Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).
> >
> > You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is quite a bit more expensive than wind power.
> >
> Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as
> disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
> choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway -
> nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death
> and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in
> comparison to other methods, including wind.

Except that the total cost and the total human impact won't be known for thousands of years.

It's kind of like carving into a hillside to build a home and having to dispose of the waste slag by dumping it in your side yard, not knowing for sure what impact that will have in 20, 40 or 60 years from now. That slag looks stable, but what happens if you get a very unusual rain storm that doesn't move for a week or two (think Houston, TX), combined with an earth quake.. That pile of slag might impact your children who would be living in the house by then.

> (The few accidents that
> have occurred lead to a lot more publicity - you never year about all
> the accidents involved in mounting or maintaining wind turbines.) The
> impact to the environment and nature, in the way Norwegians want to see
> and use their nature, would be much less with nuclear power than wind power.

The accidents are a real possibility, but not the biggest danger. But I was surprised to learn just how probable an accident is. Using the numbers the US comes up with for reactor breech, JUST FROM EARTHQUAKES, factor 100 reactors, 1 in 70,000 chance per year (some are worse, much worse, the action limit is 1 in 15,000 I believe) and a 70 year lifetime of the reactor, you get around a 1 in 10 chance of a core breach with the present number of reactors. 1 in 10 is not so small really. Would you play Russian roulette with a 10 shooter? Maybe a 100 shooter, or a 1,000 shooter, but a 10 shot revolver? I think not! And that is ONLY from earthquakes!

> Then there is the stability of the supply. For power generation, you
> want a base constant stable supply, with extra generation when there are
> peaks in the demand.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 7:57:41 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 1:01:33 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:

[about high-level reactor waste]

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

> I don't believe that is true. Nuclear waste is stored onsite for longer than a few years because in the US we have no other place to store it.

There's a storage onsite at... how many sites? They're ALL of them 'other place to store' sites.

> In fact, the US government has to pay for that on site storage because they had promised to provide a long term storage facility, and failed to do so. However...
>
> Now that it is known there is no long term storage, will new nuclear plants be required to pay for this long term storage or will the US government (meaning all of us) have to pay for it? No wonder our taxes are so high!

The ability of folk to kick the problem into next year without a solution isn't a storage
problem, so much as a political will vacuum.
Choosing a site (or sites) is a hot-potato issue, often dropped. It isn't impossible. It might
be inevitable, in fact.

On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:28:17 PM UTC+10, David Brown
> wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter
>>>>> Popoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> It's taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing
>>>>> with long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated.
>>>>> They haven't been by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up
>>>>> a repository for long term storage - several hundreds of
>>>>> thousands of years - and they may never succeed. Not in my
>>>>> backyard is a potent slogan.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But we have no other sane option, we have to start building
>>>>>> now indeed and cover by short term solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Australian power generation industry doesn't see it that
>>>>> way. They are building new solar farms and new wind turbines
>>>>> at a great rate, because they produce electricity more
>>>>> cheaply than any other source and quite a bit more cheaply
>>>>> than nuclear plants. They are starting to invest grid-scale
>>>>> batteries, and the Australian Federal Government is in the
>>>>> process of extending our biggest hydroelectric scheme to
>>>>> offer a lot of pumped storage.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
>>>>>
>>>>> The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number
>>>>> of levels.
>>>>>
>>>> Different power generation choices make sense in different
>>>> places, and have different costs (not just monetary costs -
>>>> space, environment and pollution are all costs). In Australia,
>>>> solar power should be all over the place - you have plenty of
>>>> sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway it's a very different
>>>> matter - solar power is much more expensive, simply because
>>>> there is not as much sun.
>>>
>>> There's actually more in your summer.
>>
>> No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than
>> you have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the
>> full 24 hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the
>> Arctic Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at
>> a much steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.
>
> It's the same radiation source. The angle doesn't make any difference
> to the amount of light hitting a panel that is pointed at the sun.
> The light does go through a thicker layer of atmosphere, but that
> atmosphere is mostly transparent at the relevant wavelengths.

The angle makes a /huge/ difference to the light per m² of ground area.
Yes, you can (and do) angle the panel so that it does not need to be
too big, but to get the same amount of power you need to shadow a much
larger area than you would in Australia. You can put up a bit of solar
panelling without it being too intrusive, but not much. The angle also
means that shadows from hills and mountains - which surround most towns
here - cut off much more of the direct sunlight.

The only reason Norway is as habitable as it is, is the sea - in
particular, the Gulf Stream keeps us warm. That does not contribute to
solar power generation. Surely you can understand that a country that
Australia gets more sun power than Norway!

>
> Everybody has roughly 50% cloud cover - the water goes up into the
> atmosphere until it condenses into cloud, then comes down again.
> There are places that are too far from the ocean for water vapour to
> get to all that often, but if you put a solar farm there you have to
> build an expensive high voltage transmission line to get it to the
> customers.

I realise you haven't been to Norway and know little about its climate
or geography. But you /have/ been to Australia, right?

>
> Australian venture capitalist are talking about setting up solar
> farms on the north coast of Australia to make power to ship through a
> submarine cable to Singapore, but they aren't trying to put them far
> enough inland to get away from cloud cover.
>
>> And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give
>> you some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep
>> you going for half the year.
>
> The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
> circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
> turn off from equinox to equinox.

Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about
the country I live in?

> A local company - Gelion
>
> https://gelion.com/
>
> think that Zinc bromine is the answer. I responded to one of their
> job ads - you'd think that a Ph.D. in chemistry and a lot of
> experience with electronics would have whetted their interest, but it
> didn't. They probably only hire their own graduate students.
>

Maybe you talked to them, or perhaps wrote a covering letter. That
could have put them off.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:28:17 PM UTC+10, David Brown
> > wrote:
> >> On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter
> >>>>> Popoff wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>>> It's taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing
> >>>>> with long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated.
> >>>>> They haven't been by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up
> >>>>> a repository for long term storage - several hundreds of
> >>>>> thousands of years - and they may never succeed. Not in my
> >>>>> backyard is a potent slogan.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> But we have no other sane option, we have to start building
> >>>>>> now indeed and cover by short term solutions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Australian power generation industry doesn't see it that
> >>>>> way. They are building new solar farms and new wind turbines
> >>>>> at a great rate, because they produce electricity more
> >>>>> cheaply than any other source and quite a bit more cheaply
> >>>>> than nuclear plants. They are starting to invest grid-scale
> >>>>> batteries, and the Australian Federal Government is in the
> >>>>> process of extending our biggest hydroelectric scheme to
> >>>>> offer a lot of pumped storage.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number
> >>>>> of levels.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Different power generation choices make sense in different
> >>>> places, and have different costs (not just monetary costs -
> >>>> space, environment and pollution are all costs). In Australia,
> >>>> solar power should be all over the place - you have plenty of
> >>>> sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway it's a very different
> >>>> matter - solar power is much more expensive, simply because
> >>>> there is not as much sun.
> >>>
> >>> There's actually more in your summer.
> >>
> >> No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than
> >> you have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the
> >> full 24 hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the
> >> Arctic Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at
> >> a much steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.
> >
> > It's the same radiation source. The angle doesn't make any difference
> > to the amount of light hitting a panel that is pointed at the sun.
> > The light does go through a thicker layer of atmosphere, but that
> > atmosphere is mostly transparent at the relevant wavelengths.
> The angle makes a /huge/ difference to the light per m² of ground area.
> Yes, you can (and do) angle the panel so that it does not need to be
> too big, but to get the same amount of power you need to shadow a much
> larger area than you would in Australia. You can put up a bit of solar
> panelling without it being too intrusive, but not much. The angle also
> means that shadows from hills and mountains - which surround most towns
> here - cut off much more of the direct sunlight.
>
> The only reason Norway is as habitable as it is, is the sea - in
> particular, the Gulf Stream keeps us warm. That does not contribute to
> solar power generation. Surely you can understand that a country that
> Australia gets more sun power than Norway!
> >
> > Everybody has roughly 50% cloud cover - the water goes up into the
> > atmosphere until it condenses into cloud, then comes down again.
> > There are places that are too far from the ocean for water vapour to
> > get to all that often, but if you put a solar farm there you have to
> > build an expensive high voltage transmission line to get it to the
> > customers.
> I realise you haven't been to Norway and know little about its climate
> or geography. But you /have/ been to Australia, right?
> >
> > Australian venture capitalist are talking about setting up solar
> > farms on the north coast of Australia to make power to ship through a
> > submarine cable to Singapore, but they aren't trying to put them far
> > enough inland to get away from cloud cover.
> >
> >> And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give
> >> you some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep
> >> you going for half the year.
> >
> > The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
> > circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
> > turn off from equinox to equinox.
> Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
> Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about
> the country I live in?

This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're not.

If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not correct, explain why. It's that simple.

It is not uncommon for Bill to be in denial of some fact. He may pull up some obscure paper that doesn't actually say what he claims it says. When he says things that aren't fact, you can call him on it. But calling him a twat just shows you have no argument and you have gotten exposed and are pissed about it (Phil A's main mode of living).

> > A local company - Gelion
> >
> > https://gelion.com/
> >
> > think that Zinc bromine is the answer. I responded to one of their
> > job ads - you'd think that a Ph.D. in chemistry and a lot of
> > experience with electronics would have whetted their interest, but it
> > didn't. They probably only hire their own graduate students.
> >
> Maybe you talked to them, or perhaps wrote a covering letter. That
> could have put them off.

Yes, doubling down! A good move in blackjack, but not so much in the twat domain.

--

Rick C.

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

On 21/04/2022 05:42, Ricky wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
>>>>>>>> the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
>>>>>>>> smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
>>>>>>>> Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
>>>>>>>> has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
>>>>>>>> weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
>>>>>>>> masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
>>>>>>>> engine I hope to build in my backyard won't come for free :D.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
>>>>>>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem
>>>>>>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
>>>>>>> while we also work on short term solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Only if you haven't bothered to think how much you a re going to have to charge for each kilowatt hour of energy you sell to your customers to let you make a profit.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to over-regulation,
>>>>>> like Jeroen suggested.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then again some twenty of France's 56 nuclear reactors were all shut down for a while recently while mistakes in the original build were corrected, Nuclear plants have got more expensive recently because we've learned more about how they can go wrong. Solving problems that you can anticipate is cheaper that solving them after they've made themselves obvious, but it isn't free,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Then the word "nuclear" still spells suicide for many if not all politicians - which is the biggest problem, after decades of training the public to perceive the word like this now is pay time.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing with long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated. They haven't been by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up a repository for long term storage - several hundreds of thousands of years - and they may never succeed. Not in my backyard is a potent slogan.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But we have no other sane option, we have to start building now indeed and cover by short term solutions.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Australian power generation industry doesn't see it that way. They are building new solar farms and new wind turbines at a great rate, because they produce electricity more cheaply than any other source and quite a bit more cheaply than nuclear plants. They are starting to invest grid-scale batteries, and the Australian Federal Government is in the process of extending our biggest hydroelectric scheme to offer a lot of pumped storage.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
>>>>>
>>>>> The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels.
>>>>>
>>>> Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
>>>> have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
>>>> pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
>>>> the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
>>>> it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
>>>> simply because there is not as much sun.
>>>
>>> There's actually more in your summer.
>> No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
>> have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
>> hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
>> Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
>> steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.
>>
>> And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
>> some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going
>> for half the year.
>>> And wind power works pretty much everywhere.
>> It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
>> middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
>> plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills,
>> and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
>> of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of
>> our hills). And people don't want them there.
>>
>> There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
>> even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
>> sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available.
>
> Sounds like Norway is pretty screwed. I suggest you limit your population, "one child" policy sounds like a good idea. Free up some space and live like you are in Texas.
>

We are one of only about two or three countries in the world that
actually make a profit, rather than continuously increasing their
national debt - and we are the only such country you'd want to live in.
We are in the top ranks for almost any measurement of countries - live
expectancy, health care, income, lack of poverty, happiness, clean air,
lack of corruption, trust in each other, democracy, low crime rates.
Yeah, we are really screwed.

We are still far from perfect, and there are certain areas where
people's attitudes need to change. Power generation is one of them - we
have been too used to cheap, clean power for too long, and most people
here don't understand how electricity import and export really works.

>
>> (We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
>> wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
>> Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
>> or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
>> with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
>> electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity
>> generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
>> but it's hard to convince some people.)
>
> No one? Not even when they are cold and in the dark? So you think they'd rather see cooling towers or large plumes of coal smoke?
>

Do you ever read my posts before jumping to conclusions? Maybe I am too
long-winded and you skim over parts.

> It is easy to stop exporting electricity, pay more for it and they will sell it to you instead of importing!
>

What a naïve fairytale world you live in!

>
>>>> Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
>>>> Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).
>>>
>>> You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is quite a bit more expensive than wind power.
>>>
>> Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as
>> disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
>> choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway -
>> nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death
>> and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in
>> comparison to other methods, including wind.
>
> Except that the total cost and the total human impact won't be known for thousands of years.
>

We do, however, know that without a massive change to the way we get
energy, the impact to the earth and humanity within a century or so will
make the impact in a thousand years time almost irrelevant.

The long-term cost of storing nuclear waste is a can we can kick down
the road - unlike the cost of continued use of fossil fuels at the
current rate.

On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

>>> The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
>>> circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
>>> turn off from equinox to equinox.
>> Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
>> Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about
>> the country I live in?
>
> This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're not.
>

After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia
and solar panels should be as good here as they are there, he then tries
to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes in this country.

> If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not correct, explain why. It's that simple.

I'm fine with discussing facts - and correcting people, or being
corrected myself, as need be. And I'm fine with people having different
opinions or thoughts.

But I'm not keen on being patronised, and having someone on the other
side of the world try to tell me what things are like /here/ - right
down to simple clear facts.

Maybe I used uglier wording than was called for. Maybe "twat" sounds
worse to you (and possibly Bill) than it does to a Brit - it really is
not a strong term at all (and nothing even remotely in Phil A's class).
Maybe I have been hanging around this group too long and lowered my
standards towards the mean.

This group never has been a good place for calm and reflected
conversations. Even the most rational and knowledgeable posters here
regularly fail to listen to others in their eagerness to make their own
points - willingness to learn is close to zero, while frustration is high.

I come and go in this group - maybe it's time to leave for a while.
Experience shows that pretty much the same people will be saying pretty
much the same things next time I rejoin.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 9:53:38 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 21/04/2022 05:42, Ricky wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:28:17 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
> >>>> On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >>>>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <snip>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
> >>>>>>>> the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
> >>>>>>>> smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
> >>>>>>>> Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
> >>>>>>>> has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
> >>>>>>>> weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
> >>>>>>>> masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
> >>>>>>>> engine I hope to build in my backyard won't come for free :D.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
> >>>>>>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem
> >>>>>>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
> >>>>>>> while we also work on short term solutions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Only if you haven't bothered to think how much you a re going to have to charge for each kilowatt hour of energy you sell to your customers to let you make a profit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to over-regulation,
> >>>>>> like Jeroen suggested.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then again some twenty of France's 56 nuclear reactors were all shut down for a while recently while mistakes in the original build were corrected, Nuclear plants have got more expensive recently because we've learned more about how they can go wrong. Solving problems that you can anticipate is cheaper that solving them after they've made themselves obvious, but it isn't free,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Then the word "nuclear" still spells suicide for many if not all politicians - which is the biggest problem, after decades of training the public to perceive the word like this now is pay time.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It's taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing with long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated. They haven't been by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up a repository for long term storage - several hundreds of thousands of years - and they may never succeed. Not in my backyard is a potent slogan.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> But we have no other sane option, we have to start building now indeed and cover by short term solutions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The Australian power generation industry doesn't see it that way. They are building new solar farms and new wind turbines at a great rate, because they produce electricity more cheaply than any other source and quite a bit more cheaply than nuclear plants. They are starting to invest grid-scale batteries, and the Australian Federal Government is in the process of extending our biggest hydroelectric scheme to offer a lot of pumped storage.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
> >>>> have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
> >>>> pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
> >>>> the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
> >>>> it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
> >>>> simply because there is not as much sun.
> >>>
> >>> There's actually more in your summer.
> >> No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
> >> have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
> >> hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
> >> Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
> >> steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.
> >>
> >> And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
> >> some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going
> >> for half the year.
> >>> And wind power works pretty much everywhere.
> >> It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
> >> middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
> >> plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills,
> >> and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
> >> of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of
> >> our hills). And people don't want them there.
> >>
> >> There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
> >> even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
> >> sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available.
> >
> > Sounds like Norway is pretty screwed. I suggest you limit your population, "one child" policy sounds like a good idea. Free up some space and live like you are in Texas.
> >
>
> We are one of only about two or three countries in the world that
> actually make a profit, rather than continuously increasing their
> national debt - and we are the only such country you'd want to live in.
> We are in the top ranks for almost any measurement of countries - live
> expectancy, health care, income, lack of poverty, happiness, clean air,
> lack of corruption, trust in each other, democracy, low crime rates.
> Yeah, we are really screwed.

If you have the energy capacity of a third world country in a few years, yeah, pretty screwed.

> We are still far from perfect, and there are certain areas where
> people's attitudes need to change. Power generation is one of them - we
> have been too used to cheap, clean power for too long, and most people
> here don't understand how electricity import and export really works.
>
> >
> >> (We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
> >> wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
> >> Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
> >> or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
> >> with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
> >> electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity
> >> generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
> >> but it's hard to convince some people.)
> >
> > No one? Not even when they are cold and in the dark? So you think they'd rather see cooling towers or large plumes of coal smoke?
> >
>
> Do you ever read my posts before jumping to conclusions? Maybe I am too
> long-winded and you skim over parts.

LOL! I like the idea of being lectured by someone who often fails to have any idea of what he is responding to.

> > It is easy to stop exporting electricity, pay more for it and they will sell it to you instead of importing!
> >
>
> What a naïve fairytale world you live in!

You said you have to burn fossil fuels because you export too much clean energy and you say I live in a fairytale world? Everything is about the price. Do you produce enough hydropower or not? If not, why not? What limits it?

> >>>> Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
> >>>> Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).
> >>>
> >>> You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is quite a bit more expensive than wind power.
> >>>
> >> Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as
> >> disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
> >> choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway -
> >> nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death
> >> and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in
> >> comparison to other methods, including wind.
> >
> > Except that the total cost and the total human impact won't be known for thousands of years.
> >
>
> We do, however, know that without a massive change to the way we get
> energy, the impact to the earth and humanity within a century or so will
> make the impact in a thousand years time almost irrelevant.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>
> >>> The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
> >>> circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
> >>> turn off from equinox to equinox.
> >> Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
> >> Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about
> >> the country I live in?
> >
> > This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're not.
> >
> After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia
> and solar panels should be as good here as they are there, he then tries
> to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes in this country.

Because you seemed to be unaware. He was pointing out that most of the country (and most of the people) is where sun does shine and solar cells *are* still effective. If you can't handle a simple conversation...

> > If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not correct, explain why. It's that simple.
> I'm fine with discussing facts - and correcting people, or being
> corrected myself, as need be. And I'm fine with people having different
> opinions or thoughts.
>
> But I'm not keen on being patronised, and having someone on the other
> side of the world try to tell me what things are like /here/ - right
> down to simple clear facts.

See! You are being far too emotional to discuss this rationally.

> Maybe I used uglier wording than was called for. Maybe "twat" sounds
> worse to you (and possibly Bill) than it does to a Brit - it really is
> not a strong term at all (and nothing even remotely in Phil A's class).
> Maybe I have been hanging around this group too long and lowered my
> standards towards the mean.
>
> This group never has been a good place for calm and reflected
> conversations. Even the most rational and knowledgeable posters here
> regularly fail to listen to others in their eagerness to make their own
> points - willingness to learn is close to zero, while frustration is high..
>
> I come and go in this group - maybe it's time to leave for a while.
> Experience shows that pretty much the same people will be saying pretty
> much the same things next time I rejoin.

Or you could just cool your jets. But you are right about the scenery not changing here. There are no seasons.

--

Rick C.

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

On 21/04/2022 16:43, Ricky wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:28:08 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>> On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>
>>>>> The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the Arctic
>>>>> circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but sunlight doesn't
>>>>> turn off from equinox to equinox.
>>>> Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending twat?
>>>> Are you really trying to tell me the most basic geographical facts about
>>>> the country I live in?
>>>
>>> This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others. Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country because that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"? Because you're not.
>>>
>> After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia
>> and solar panels should be as good here as they are there, he then tries
>> to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes in this country.
>
> Because you seemed to be unaware. He was pointing out that most of the country (and most of the people) is where sun does shine and solar cells *are* still effective. If you can't handle a simple conversation...
>
>
You could only reach that conclusion if you (or he) did not read what I
wrote, or filled in some gaps with your imaginations. (The scenery does
not change, as you say - this happens all the time in this group, even
amongst the rational and logical members. I suspect the popular use of
the utterly crap google groups interface, and the almost total lack of
snipping, is partly to blame.)

People in Norway /do/ have some solar panels. We even have some on the
roof of our factory. I never suggested that we don't have them, or that
they don't work. But they are not remotely as effective here as they
are in a country or area that has much less average cloud cover, and
much higher angle of sun.

In Australia (excluding perhaps some of the rainier parts at the
coasts), you can use solar power for serious power generation - it is
reliable, consistent, and you collect a lot of power for the land usage
and for the panel area.

In Norway, it can only ever be a small supplement. You make a small
amount of electricity during summer, at the time you need it least (we
heat by electricity). Oslo and the main population areas in Norway are
certainly below the Arctic Circle, but in the middle of winter they have
about 6 hours of weak daylight - you get practically nothing from solar
panels. We only have them at all because Norwegians have a lot of money
and like to feel "green" - the break-even time for the cost of panels on
your house roof is about 20 years or so, last I heard.

On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 12:28:08 AM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
>> On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>
>>>>> The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the
>>>>> Arctic circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but
>>>>> sunlight doesn't turn off from equinox to equinox.
>>>> Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending
>>>> twat? Are you really trying to tell me the most basic
>>>> geographical facts about the country I live in?
>>>
>>> This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if
>>> not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly
>>> insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others.
>>> Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country because
>>> that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't
>>> throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"?
>>> Because you're not.
>>>
>> After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as
>> Australia and solar panels should be as good here as they are
>> there, he then tries to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes
>> in this country.
>
> I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia.
> For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia,

Surely it is obvious that we were always talking about "per unit area of
land" ?

> and that area is
> tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.

You certainly wrote as though you missed that one. It seems you think
the prime difference between generating solar power in Norway and
Australia is that you just need to tilt your panel a bit.

>
> You don't cover the whole country with solar panels to collect solar
> power - you put up enough to generate the power you need, and you
> tilt them so the sunlight hits them more or less square on. If you
> put them up right each solar panel will generate much the same amount
> of power - averaged over the year - in Norway or Australia, but
> you've got to work harder to get that result in Norway. Sticking them
> well up the sunny side of steep hills isn't as easy as laying down
> solar panels in a flat field

I really don't believe you have thought this through - physically,
sociologically, environmentally, geographically or economically.

You are used to a country that has a lot of wide open spaces. Outside
of the cities, it is mostly endless plains - and away from the coasts,
cloud and rain is only occasional. Land space is cheap, flat, and easy
to build on, and will give you reliable and predictable solar power.
Obviously you need energy storage for fluctuations over the day and
night, but not much more than that. And since this would be far from
people, the sociologically cost would be zero and the environmental cost
minimal.

Norway is not like that. Our flat land is mostly either built on, or
farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under
two meters of snow for half the year. Our hills are either grazing
land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and ice for
half the year. You can't build solar power of any significance anywhere
here. You could build a bit on some hills, but the environmental and
social costs (people here put great social value on relatively
undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the tourism it brings)
would be very high compared to the power generated. And again, they'd
be covered in snow half the year.

Even if you were to ignore the economic costs, and ignore all
environmental costs, and bureaucracy, and landowners' rights, and found
a south-facing hillside, there are still big issues. One thing about a
hilly and mountainous landscape is that hills have other hills nearby -
with a low-lying sun, you have shadow during a lot of the theoretical
daylight. (There is a famous town in central Norway, Rujkan, which is
far south of the Arctic Circle but which has no direct sunlight for
almost exactly half the year due the surrounding mountains.) Even when
there is direct sunlight, without shadows, and without much cloud (and
we have a /lot/ of cloud), the sun moves across the sky. For solar
panels on flat ground near the tropics, you can tilt the panels for
optimal capture - on a hillside in the far north, you'd need to move the
panels around the hill. Clearly that is impossible - so you have to
accept that they will generate only a small fraction of the total power
you'd get in other places.

>
>>> If you aren't interested in discussing the facts, why are you
>>> here? Why are you in this conversation? If the facts are not
>>> correct, explain why. It's that simple.
>>
>> I'm fine with discussing facts - and correcting people, or being
>> corrected myself, as need be. And I'm fine with people having
>> different opinions or thoughts.
>
> Though not as fine as you like to think.

Perhaps - but the same applies to pretty much everyone here.

>
>> But I'm not keen on being patronised, and having someone on the
>> other side of the world try to tell me what things are like /here/
>> - right down to simple clear facts.
>
> Sadly, you got "your simple clear facts" slightly wrong, because you
> didn't think hard enough about what you were saying.
>
>> Maybe I used uglier wording than was called for. Maybe "twat"
>> sounds worse to you (and possibly Bill) than it does to a Brit - it
>> really is not a strong term at all (and nothing even remotely in
>> Phil A's class). Maybe I have been hanging around this group too
>> long and lowered my standards towards the mean.
>
> "Twat" is pretty rude. I worked in the UK for 22 years, and used the
> word from time to time.

Then perhaps I need to be more specific - to a /Scot/, it is not a
strong term. (I would not have used that word if I had thought it would
be interpreted as being so rude as it apparently has been.)

>
>> This group never has been a good place for calm and reflective
>> conversations. Even the most rational and knowledgeable posters
>> here regularly fail to listen to others in their eagerness to make
>> their own points - willingness to learn is close to zero, while
>> frustration is high.
>>
>> I come and go in this group - maybe it's time to leave for a
>> while. Experience shows that pretty much the same people will be
>> saying pretty much the same things next time I rejoin.
>
> There is useful content here, but not a lot. A certain amount of
> ritualised squabbling gives people something to do until an
> interesting technical question shows up.
>

Agreed. And I think it is important to view it as "ritualised
squabbling", rather than anything personal.

Unfortunately, it is sometimes too easy to go overboard, either in what
we write, or how we interpret what we read.

On 20/04/2022 05:55, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> On 2022-04-19 21:16, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
>> tirsdag den 19. april 2022 kl. 21.04.07 UTC+2 skrev Ricky:
> [...]
>
>>> Don't turn to the French for nuclear. They can't seem to build a
>>> nuke for less than $20 billion these days and it will be a decade
>>> late in commissioning. Their nuclear projects are mostly
>>> disasters.
>>>
>>
>> yeh, only 56 reactors and producing +70% of the country's electricity
>> ...
>>
>
> The reason it's so hard to make new ones these days is the crippling
> regulatory environment. My work also involves radioactive stuff.
> We're so bogged down it's hard to get anything done at all.
>
> Of course, it's all for our own and the public's safety. You can't
> criticize that or you'll be deemed irresponsible.
>
> It's almost funny. I *know* we all get a daily dose of ~10uSv, just
> from the ordinary environment, but the extra few hundred nSv I
> occasionally get from working on slightly radioactive stuff seems
> to justify lots of extra rules, lots of paperwork, regular
> inspections, special labs and protective gear. Granted, those are
> sometimes necessary, but sheesh, a bit of common sense would be
> welcome. A few uSv extra on occasion aren't going to make a
> difference!

Yes, it would take some effort to incorporate common sense into the
rules, and the people who come up with the rules have no incentive to do
that, as the cost of complying with the rules is not their problem.

Where I work, sources of ionising radiation (including UV) have to be
registered and licensed with the country's nuclear regulator. It not
always required by law, but some people at the institution have made it
our policy to always do it, and have the job of making us do it, and I
guess they would not want to be out of a job. So, we have a solar
simulator which produces radiation very precisely identical to sunlight,
(therefore including some UV) and a lot of paperwork explaining how hard
we will try not to expose ourselves to this radiation, and we mustn't
lose or sell or move the device without the correct permission. On the
other hand, we can open the window and expose ourselves to the same
spectrum and intensity from the real sun (weather permitting) without
any paperwork, and they even let us go outside.

I think the solution is to subcontract all of the experimental work to
an institution in another country.

On 4/22/2022 5:03 AM, David Brown wrote:

> Norway is not like that.  Our flat land is mostly either built on, or
> farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under
> two meters of snow for half the year.  Our hills are either grazing
> land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and ice for
> half the year.  You can't build solar power of any significance anywhere
> here.  You could build a bit on some hills, but the environmental and
> social costs (people here put great social value on relatively
> undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the tourism it brings)

Yeah, Norway = lil racist country full of vicious bigots who love
"nature" it's kinda like the United States in that regard, it's great if
you're rich & white but sucks shit if you're anyone else you'll never be
able to find housing you can afford or get anywhere in life.

On 4/22/2022 9:14 AM, bitrex wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 5:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
>> Norway is not like that.  Our flat land is mostly either built on, or
>> farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under
>> two meters of snow for half the year.  Our hills are either grazing
>> land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and ice for
>> half the year.  You can't build solar power of any significance
>> anywhere here.  You could build a bit on some hills, but the
>> environmental and social costs (people here put great social value on
>> relatively undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the
>> tourism it brings)
>
> Yeah, Norway = lil racist country full of vicious bigots who love
> "nature" it's kinda like the United States in that regard, it's great if
> you're rich & white but sucks shit if you're anyone else you'll never be
> able to find housing you can afford or get anywhere in life.

Norway deports Syrian refugees to Russia:

<https://youtu.be/Llk8neba1jo>

Norway prepared to accept 100,000 Ukraine refugees:

<https://www.schengenvisainfo.com/news/norway-prepares-to-receive-over-100000-refugees-from-ukraine/>

lol Norwegian men must be hoping for some cheap dates with broke
Ukrainian blondes.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:03:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 12:28:08 AM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
> >> On 21/04/2022 14:35, Ricky wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 2:16:04 AM UTC-4, David Brown
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 20/04/2022 19:28, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >>
> >>>>> The bulk of the Norwegian land mass is actually below the
> >>>>> Arctic circle. The days get pretty short at midwinter, but
> >>>>> sunlight doesn't turn off from equinox to equinox.
> >>>> Do you ever get surprised when people call you a condescending
> >>>> twat? Are you really trying to tell me the most basic
> >>>> geographical facts about the country I live in?
> >>>
> >>> This is the sort of crap that is common in this group, even if
> >>> not commonly from you. You have no reason to be blatantly
> >>> insulting like that. That is more the domain of Phil A or others.
> >>> Yes, he is pointing out issues that apply to your country because
> >>> that is the country being discusses. Are you PO'd that he isn't
> >>> throwing in the towel and say, "Geez David, you are right!"?
> >>> Because you're not.
> >>>
> >> After trying to tell me that Norway gets as much sun power as
> >> Australia and solar panels should be as good here as they are
> >> there, he then tries to explain to me where the Arctic Circle goes
> >> in this country.
> >
> > I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia.
> > For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia,
> Surely it is obvious that we were always talking about "per unit area of
> land" ?

That is a silly distinction. Land is the least expensive part of solar farms. Don't tell me land is so valuable for farming that you can't use it for solar farms. At your latitude you can put solar on hills that otherwise would not be very suitable for farming.

> > and that area is
> > tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.
> You certainly wrote as though you missed that one. It seems you think
> the prime difference between generating solar power in Norway and
> Australia is that you just need to tilt your panel a bit.
> >
> > You don't cover the whole country with solar panels to collect solar
> > power - you put up enough to generate the power you need, and you
> > tilt them so the sunlight hits them more or less square on. If you
> > put them up right each solar panel will generate much the same amount
> > of power - averaged over the year - in Norway or Australia, but
> > you've got to work harder to get that result in Norway. Sticking them
> > well up the sunny side of steep hills isn't as easy as laying down
> > solar panels in a flat field
> I really don't believe you have thought this through - physically,
> sociologically, environmentally, geographically or economically.

I like that, "sociologically". Lol What are the negative sociological impacts of solar farms in Norway? You've already said people put up solar panels to "feel good" about it.

> You are used to a country that has a lot of wide open spaces. Outside
> of the cities, it is mostly endless plains - and away from the coasts,
> cloud and rain is only occasional. Land space is cheap, flat, and easy
> to build on, and will give you reliable and predictable solar power.
> Obviously you need energy storage for fluctuations over the day and
> night, but not much more than that. And since this would be far from
> people, the sociologically cost would be zero and the environmental cost
> minimal.
>
> Norway is not like that. Our flat land is mostly either built on, or
> farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under
> two meters of snow for half the year. Our hills are either grazing
> land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and ice for
> half the year. You can't build solar power of any significance anywhere
> here.

I have no reason to believe that is remotely accurate. Land to support solar panels only needs to be land, solid and stable. There is always lots of that in any country. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

> You could build a bit on some hills, but the environmental and
> social costs (people here put great social value on relatively
> undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the tourism it brings)
> would be very high compared to the power generated. And again, they'd
> be covered in snow half the year.

Not if they are nearly vertical. Snow tends to not stick on things that are steeply sloped. As to the day length, I've read they are using solar panels as heat sinks for powering thermoelectric generators at night! That would be interesting to see how well that works in the North.

> Even if you were to ignore the economic costs, and ignore all
> environmental costs, and bureaucracy, and landowners' rights, and found
> a south-facing hillside, there are still big issues. One thing about a
> hilly and mountainous landscape is that hills have other hills nearby -
> with a low-lying sun, you have shadow during a lot of the theoretical
> daylight. (There is a famous town in central Norway, Rujkan, which is
> far south of the Arctic Circle but which has no direct sunlight for
> almost exactly half the year due the surrounding mountains.) Even when
> there is direct sunlight, without shadows, and without much cloud (and
> we have a /lot/ of cloud), the sun moves across the sky. For solar
> panels on flat ground near the tropics, you can tilt the panels for
> optimal capture - on a hillside in the far north, you'd need to move the
> panels around the hill. Clearly that is impossible - so you have to
> accept that they will generate only a small fraction of the total power
> you'd get in other places.

I can't believe you are so poorly equipped to consider the geometry of the situation.

Whatever. Clearly there is no point to discussing this further. Enjoy.

--

Rick C.

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

On 22/04/2022 15:14, bitrex wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 5:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
>
>> Norway is not like that.  Our flat land is mostly either built on, or
>> farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and under
>> two meters of snow for half the year.  Our hills are either grazing
>> land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and ice for
>> half the year.  You can't build solar power of any significance
>> anywhere here.  You could build a bit on some hills, but the
>> environmental and social costs (people here put great social value on
>> relatively undisturbed nature - and great economic value on the
>> tourism it brings)
>
> Yeah, Norway = lil racist country full of vicious bigots who love
> "nature" it's kinda like the United States in that regard, it's great if
> you're rich & white but sucks shit if you're anyone else you'll never be
> able to find housing you can afford or get anywhere in life.

What a strange and distorted viewpoint you have picked up from somewhere.

Some of the political parties are rather keen on the "help refugees
where they are" line. And there certainly some of the distinctions
between handling of refugees can appear racist (and some of them, for
some people at least, /are/ racist). But the reality of the current
situation in Ukraine is actually significantly different from that in
Syria, and the refugee situation is significantly different.

I can't deny that there are racists in Norway, and other kinds of
bigots. But I certainly /can/ deny that the country is "full" of them.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:40:54 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>
> In Norway, it can only ever be a small supplement. You make a small
> amount of electricity during summer, at the time you need it least (we
> heat by electricity). Oslo and the main population areas in Norway are
> certainly below the Arctic Circle, but in the middle of winter they have
> about 6 hours of weak daylight - you get practically nothing from solar
> panels. We only have them at all because Norwegians have a lot of money
> and like to feel "green" - the break-even time for the cost of panels on
> your house roof is about 20 years or so, last I heard.

https://teknologiradet.no/en/the-solar-revolution-and-what-it-can-mean-for-norway/

It seems not everyone shares your pessimism.

--

Rick C.

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

On 4/22/2022 9:46 AM, David Brown wrote:
> On 22/04/2022 15:14, bitrex wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 5:03 AM, David Brown wrote:
>>
>>> Norway is not like that.  Our flat land is mostly either built on, or
>>> farmland, or some high heaths that are marshes in the summer and
>>> under two meters of snow for half the year.  Our hills are either
>>> grazing land, forest, or mountains that again are covered in snow and
>>> ice for half the year.  You can't build solar power of any
>>> significance anywhere here.  You could build a bit on some hills, but
>>> the environmental and social costs (people here put great social
>>> value on relatively undisturbed nature - and great economic value on
>>> the tourism it brings)
>>
>> Yeah, Norway = lil racist country full of vicious bigots who love
>> "nature" it's kinda like the United States in that regard, it's great
>> if you're rich & white but sucks shit if you're anyone else you'll
>> never be able to find housing you can afford or get anywhere in life.
>
> What a strange and distorted viewpoint you have picked up from somewhere.
>
> Some of the political parties are rather keen on the "help refugees
> where they are" line.  And there certainly some of the distinctions
> between handling of refugees can appear racist (and some of them, for
> some people at least, /are/ racist).  But the reality of the current
> situation in Ukraine is actually significantly different from that in
> Syria, and the refugee situation is significantly different.
>
> I can't deny that there are racists in Norway, and other kinds of
> bigots.  But I certainly /can/ deny that the country is "full" of them.
>

Oh okay. That's kinder to Norway than I would've expected, but I don't
believe you were born there? Sometimes I think ex pats tend to see their
new digs with rose-tinted glasses.

I've lived in the USA my whole life and I'll tell you straightforwardly
what you've heard is pretty much true it's full of bigots and assholes, lol

On 4/19/22 16:53, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>
>> Our back yard is a jungle already. Snakes, skunks, raccoons,
>> possum, coyotes, squirrels, scrub jays, hummers, junkoes (sp?),
>> feral cats, wild parrots, giant ravens.
>>
>> A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.
>
> Is it legal to own an air rifle?

I guess he isn't cruel like you.

On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:32:43 -0700, corvid <bl@ckb.ird> wrote:

>On 4/19/22 16:53, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Our back yard is a jungle already. Snakes, skunks, raccoons,
>>> possum, coyotes, squirrels, scrub jays, hummers, junkoes (sp?),
>>> feral cats, wild parrots, giant ravens.
>>>
>>> A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.
>>
>> Is it legal to own an air rifle?
>
>I guess he isn't cruel like you.

Some people just like to kill things. I suspect it's the genetic
hunter instinct.

Mo won't kill a bug in the house. She traps them and sets them free
outdoors. Mosquitoes excepted.

--

If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon

On 4/22/2022 10:19 AM, Ricky wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 3:40:54 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
>>
>> In Norway, it can only ever be a small supplement. You make a small
>> amount of electricity during summer, at the time you need it least (we
>> heat by electricity). Oslo and the main population areas in Norway are
>> certainly below the Arctic Circle, but in the middle of winter they have
>> about 6 hours of weak daylight - you get practically nothing from solar
>> panels. We only have them at all because Norwegians have a lot of money
>> and like to feel "green" - the break-even time for the cost of panels on
>> your house roof is about 20 years or so, last I heard.
>
> https://teknologiradet.no/en/the-solar-revolution-and-what-it-can-mean-for-norway/
>
> It seems not everyone shares your pessimism.
>

Maine seems okay with expanding solar energy. It's actually pretty sunny
there on average in the wintertime (November and December in particular
in New England can often be pretty dull months weather-wise, where high
pressure system gets locked in and it's just cold with average temps in
the 40s or 30s for weeks at a time), and colder weather means higher
efficiency for the panels, despite at the winter solstice northern Maine
doesn't get much more than 7 hours of daylight.

Is David Brown even a real Norwegian name? I want the opinion of an Olaf
Svjerginborginjergen on the topic

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 6:39:08 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:03:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> > On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

> > > I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia.
> > > For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia,
> > Surely it is obvious that we were always talking about "per unit area of
> > land" ?
> That is a silly distinction. Land is the least expensive part of solar farms. Don't tell me land is so valuable for farming that you can't use it for solar farms. At your latitude you can put solar on hills that otherwise would not be very suitable for farming.
> > > and that area is
> > > tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.

> > You certainly wrote as though you missed that one. It seems you think
> > the prime difference between generating solar power in Norway and
> > Australia is that you just need to tilt your panel a bit.

Huh? Parts of Norway have midnight sun in summer, and zero daylight
hours in winter. Tilt the panel to point at the sun, and it's pointing
at dirt, in darkness.

And when the sun is near the horizon, a 1 square meter aimed solar panel shades
a kilometer or so behind it. You don't get much benefit per acre that way.

> > You are used to a country that has a lot of wide open spaces. Outside
> > of the cities, it is mostly endless plains - and away from the coasts,
> > cloud and rain is only occasional. Land space is cheap, flat, and easy
> > to build on, and will give you reliable and predictable solar power.
> > Obviously you need energy storage for fluctuations over the day and
> > night, but not much more than that. And since this would be far from
> > people, the sociologically cost would be zero and the environmental cost
> > minimal.
> >
> > Norway is not like that.... You can't build solar power of any significance anywhere
> > here.

> I have no reason to believe that is remotely accurate.

Geometry suggests it to be true. Examine a globe.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 8:43:32 PM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 12:53:47 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 6:39:08 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> > > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:03:26 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> > > > On 21/04/2022 18:02, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> >
> > > > > I didn't tell you that Norway gets as much sun power as Australia.
> > > > > For a start Noway has 5% of the area of Australia, and that area is tilted further away from incoming solar radiation.

> > Parts of Norway have midnight sun in summer, and zero daylight hours in winter.
> Bit of it are above the Arctic circle. The bulk of the country isn't - quite.
> > Tilt the panel to point at the sun, and it's pointing at dirt, in darkness.

> in the middle of winter.

> > And when the sun is near the horizon, a 1 square meter aimed solar panel shades a kilometer or so behind it.
> That's always true when the Sun is near the horizon, which happens twice a day wherever you are.

Yeah, but let's consider 63 degrees north (Alesund), about mid-Norway and well below the arctic circle.
At winter solstice, the maximum the sun rises above the horizon there is 3.5 degrees.

From two weeks before winter solstice, to two weeks after, it rises above the horizon by
a maximum (at noon) under 3.6 degrees...

> In Norway, that can be for a lot of the day, so you'd put your solar panels on on the sunny sides of the steepest hill you could find.

A lot of the day is right. Norway gets more energy using their hills for hydroelectric power than for photovoltaics.
Acres of ocean illuminated by sunlight really IS a cost-effective collector, even at high latitudes.

John Larkin wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:32:43 -0700, corvid <bl@ckb.ird> wrote:
>
>> On 4/19/22 16:53, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Our back yard is a jungle already. Snakes, skunks, raccoons,
>>>> possum, coyotes, squirrels, scrub jays, hummers, junkoes (sp?),
>>>> feral cats, wild parrots, giant ravens.
>>>>
>>>> A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.
>>>
>>> Is it legal to own an air rifle?
>>
>> I guess he isn't cruel like you.
>
> Some people just like to kill things. I suspect it's the genetic
> hunter instinct.
>
> Mo won't kill a bug in the house. She traps them and sets them free
> outdoors. Mosquitoes excepted.

I meant to suggest that you can eat the turkey. In rural areas it would
be seen that way, and not cruel.

--
Defund the Thought Police

On Sun, 24 Apr 2022 02:31:05 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
<fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

>John Larkin wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2022 10:32:43 -0700, corvid <bl@ckb.ird> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/19/22 16:53, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Our back yard is a jungle already. Snakes, skunks, raccoons,
>>>>> possum, coyotes, squirrels, scrub jays, hummers, junkoes (sp?),
>>>>> feral cats, wild parrots, giant ravens.
>>>>>
>>>>> A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.
>>>>
>>>> Is it legal to own an air rifle?
>>>
>>> I guess he isn't cruel like you.
>>
>> Some people just like to kill things. I suspect it's the genetic
>> hunter instinct.
>>
>> Mo won't kill a bug in the house. She traps them and sets them free
>> outdoors. Mosquitoes excepted.
>
>I meant to suggest that you can eat the turkey. In rural areas it would
>be seen that way, and not cruel.

That turkey was a block from the Canyon Market and half a mile from
Safeway, hardly a rural food desert.

Mo makes great turkey meatballs, but we buy ground turkey.

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye