Texas power prices briefly soar to $9,000/MWh as heat wave bakes state

I googled: how many nuke reactors being built

and found this page:

formatting link

There seems to be "about 50" listed there, the smallest is 29MW, but most are over 500MW.

--
  When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.
Reply to
Jasen Betts
Loading thread data ...

This is the nuclear power industry talking about the nuclear power industry. The embarrassing details get left out.

France had a interesting scandal about steel castings with excessive carbon content which shout down eighteen of their fifty-odd nuclear reactors at one stage. It doesn't show up at all on that website.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Typical stupid lib troll. You need someone else to do it for you. There should be a new govt program to pay for google for you and to have someone push the buttons. Your buddy DL easily found it. Took me about 30 secs. And there is no point, you just deny, deny deny, lie, lie lie. No matter what anyone presents, it's never sufficient.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

Bingo. Another guy that can use Google. That's three of us now, only one dope can;t and lies and denies instead. Next it will be that your source is lying.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

ROFL

Bingo! Right on cue. Just like I said, no point supplying you with references, you just move on to the next stage of lying and denying, which is why I wasn't going to play your troll game. I suppose we should go to the Association of Florists for data? And again, the names of the nuclear projects and countries are listed, you could just Google them to verify, but instead, you just post more BS and further embarrass yourself. Or is Google still broken down under?

Reply to
Whoey Louie

:

ather

nuclear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all th e talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

e lack of reliability of availability. But the real issue is the poor matc h between availability and the loading. Nuclear has the same problem. Nuk es have to be run flat out, even if not because of technical reasons for ec onomic reasons.

r being

en

are also technically capable of more flexible operation. This capability le ts them respond dynamically to seasonal changes in demand or hourly changes in market prices. Reactors could also provide the standby backup regulatio n and reserve services needed to balance supply and demand. According to Je nkins, all reactor designs now being licensed or built in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are capable of flexible operation, as are many older reactors n ow in service."

ing in less than 50% duty cycle.

.

ud

ur total energy production is at face value fallacious.

or

ay

g

l limitations of nuclear reactors. I said the "economic" issues because th ey are so expensive they have to be run flat out to be affordable.

uld

Libs do this all the time: Lie

Reply to
Whoey Louie

There are more than three that can use Google. But some realize replying to BS is a waste of time.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

Trader4 specialises in missing the point. It's what really stupid people do.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

You miss the point, as I seem to have mentioned before.

The question is where you are getting your half-baked numbers, not what the right answer is - since nuclear reactors aren't the solution to anthropogenic global warming, much as you'd like them to be, the "right" answer doesn't get us anywhere.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Trader4 is too dim to realise that he is troll.

And idiot like you might do that.

People comparing - say - various different sorts of utility power generators could be expected to take a more objective view of nuclear power generating plants than world-nuclear.org.

You couldn't even find that.

How do you thing I found the stuff about the duff steel castings in French nuclear reactors (which you snipped without marking the snip)? You really are remarkably stupid.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Dan isn't much better at concocting replies than Trader4. He's probably not as stupid, but there's a lot of room at the bottom.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

You seem to forget. Higher IQ, better university, and more money.

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

Whoey Louie wrote in news:4e471860-9925-45c6- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

If it is so simple then post the citation, asswipe.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

What are they doing with it spooling up an atmospheric turbine/turboprop?

It looked like a missile taking off vertically. That takes a lot of immediately spent juice. Must be a strange design.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Whoey Louie wrote in news:cade0262-7a3b-41f4- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

'cruising' is not about velocity. It is about keeping velocity.

It is about max fuel economy at max velocity.

A jet used to require afterburners, but now GE makes engines which allow supersonic flight without afterburners, and they call it 'supercruise'.

So if the thing can go long term at some hyper-velocity, it would likely be properly labeled as cruising.

It is about the ease with which a powerplant can maintain a rate once a forward velocity is reached.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Anything claiming to be hypersonic would be at altitude. Down here in the thick air, speeds like that melt and burn up meteor fragments, remember? Less likely anything truly reliable is running.

The projectiles we fire from our big railguns are practically a plasma by the time they reach their targets.

Air molecules hurt when they hit that hard. And there are so many down here at sea level.

Hypersonic missile claims... experimentors.

We are also experimenting with really pointy, really slick and fast torpedoes.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Maybe it uses conventional methods to get it airborne and less conventional methods once in flight.

Don't know, just guessing. Not even an informed guess.

--
  Rick C. 

  +-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

What? Now you too? First you confirmed that 50+ nuclear plants were being built, now you need a citation?

Bizarre, very bizarre. Do you have multiple personality disorder?

Reply to
Whoey Louie

I'm well aware of your frequently reiterated delusions.

Like Trader4, you believe in argument by persistent reiteration, which does seem to evidence of the kind of cognitive defect that doesn't get detected by IQ tests, but is still crippling in real life. Pencil and paper tests do have their weaknesses.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

Trader4 wants everybody to be a simple minded as he is. The problem - one t hat he seems incapable of recognising - is that different groups, with diff erent interests, report different "facts".

Nobody can report the whole truth, and even the most careful of reporters h ave to be selective in what they report. Less careful reporters select what they report to create a report that will appeal to their target audience, which can involve lying by omission. There are also persistent liars - Dona ld J Trump is a prominent example - who tell their audience what they think that the audience wants to hear.

Trader4 is the same kind of gullible twit as John Larkin and Cursitor Doom who latch onto the story they like, even if it looks ludicrous to more skep tical observers. Unlike those two, he doesn't provide links to the misinfor mation that has taken his fancy.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.