Say It Louder So Greta Can Hear!!

no4mk1t

Mega-Patriot!
Exchange Privileges
Joined
Feb 27, 2022
Messages
4,138
Reaction score
5,661
Points
168
Location
Dixie
It seems things are not as they seem when ALL the factors are taken into consideration...

1707182429550.png
 
Yup, the engineer in me already knew that. And, that is before addressing the lack of infrastructure to support EV's. We also simply do not have the base capacity for the pipe dream of electric cars... unless, or course, they build more coal and natural gas fired power plants.

I had my say back when obummer did that foolish cash for clunkers, looking at the supposed savings only in terms of MPG and forgetting that retaining the older car was actually more environmentally friendly. (All the manufacturing impacts were baked in a decade or more prior by virtue of it being already made.)
 
On a related vein...

Anybody else notice how obscenely large pickup trucks have become? You cannot purchase a new pickup in the size range of a 1980's or 1990's Chevy S10 or Ford Ranger... they simply do not exist.

I noticed this a few years ago, and after digging around it became obvious. The folks who wrote the MPG and emissions targets demanded efficiencies in the fleet that cannot be met. So, the manufacturers are doing the only thing they can do... they are gaming the brackets in the regs so they can build something that will sell. Hence, you get brand new trucks that are bigger than their predecessors, and fall outside the unrealistic targets the regulators demanded by ending up in the next less restrictive bracket.

This is the unintended consequences of bureaucrats writing regs to please or appease the activists. It is happening across the board. Heavy truck operators are buying up older trucks with diesel systems they can work on, railroads are taking a pass on the newest EVO locomotives, etc. All to stay out of the latest tier of emissions controls the gubberment has mandated, and to continue to do something useful.

Hey, I don't like pollution or waste. I liked the idea from the 1970's where people stopped to think about conserving resources and taking some time to think before dumping a brew of petrochemical waste into the nearest handy creek or river. But this has gotten way outta whack, we have become slaves to a bunch of zealots.
 
That's only half the story. Maybe a third. The most significant contributor is how electricity is generated in the UK.

As you can see by the chart, the headline is intentionally misleading. The cost to build the car isn't vastly different. It's the 'use phase' emissions. There's no denying that producing power is "dirty". However.. I find it ironic that the most vigorous climate change deniers who say CO2 is not really a factor get their shorts in a bunch when talking about how much CO2 is generated in producing the power needed to charge the batteries on an EV. Either CO2 matters or it doesn't. In my engineering discipline, this was called MUYFM. Make up your fucking mind. :)

Now... is mining the raw materials for batteries dirty? You bet it is. I'm waiting for those concerned about that to get rid of their cell phones, computers, and everything else in their life that uses a battery. Enjoy the cave. You cant swing a dead cat today without hitting something with a lithium-ion battery in it. If all EV production stopped tomorrow, the lithium, nickel, and cobalt mines would not shut down.

Screenshot 2024-02-06 at 1.52.18 PM.png

I think anybody who knows anything about the power generation business and technology agrees that next-generation nuclear power is the answer. Solar can power single family residences easily. The needs of industry/commerical operations... wind and solar aint gonna cut it. I agree it's not good for people or the Earth to keep burning coal, oil and natural gas on a massive scale. Whether it is or is not affecting climate is one thing. The more important factor is that it's undeniably pollution. Clean is better. I know precisely what's in flue gas, bottom ash and fly ash that comes from burning coal, natural gas, or oil. It's not good. CO2 is the least concerning of it.
 
Last edited:
However.. I find it ironic that the most vigorous climate change deniers who say CO2 is not really a factor get their shorts in a bunch when talking about how much CO2 is generated in producing the power needed to charge the batteries on an EV. Either CO2 matters or it doesn't. In my engineering discipline, this was called MUYFM. Make up your fucking mind.
No. They are simply calling out the global warming freaks out on their own unwitting self-contradiction. The "deniers" aren't denying anything except lies. And they DON'T care about human-produced CO2. They're calling out the bullshitters on their own bullshit.

Anthropogenic (human origin) "climate change" is literally impossible as explained by the Laws of Thermodynamics. Humans (and human emissions) are but a tiny TINY little blip on the global scale of thermodynamics.

I think anybody who knows anything about the power generation business and technology agrees that next-generation nuclear power is the answer. Solar can power single family residences easily. The needs of industry/commerical operations... wind and solar aint gonna cut it.
Next generation? Current generation works VERY well and is VERY safe. Furthermore, it DWARFS the other energy sources in terms of energy density. But unfortunately, nuclear power generation has been stigmatized by emotional and illogical rhetoric.

But, yeah... unicorn farts (wind) and rainbows (solar) aren't going to cut it, EVER.... again.... due to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

In lay terms... You can't get MORE of something out of LESS of something. It's also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy. (1st Law of Thermodynamics)
 
Last edited:
If all EV production stopped tomorrow, the lithium, nickel, and cobalt mines would not shut down.
The point is that EVs aren't "clean" in ANY way. But that's how they have been sold to the muggles by the elitist tyrants who seek to CONTROL the peasantry in every way possible... including whether they can travel, when, where, and how far.

They're actually WORSE (dirtier) than ICE transportation. And that's not to mention the HUGE disadvantages of EVs when it comes to practicality, usability, convenience, versatility, etc.
 
Last edited:
No. They are simply calling out the global warming freaks out on their own unwitting self-contradiction. The "deniers" aren't denying anything except lies. And they DON'T care about human-produced CO2. They're calling out the bullshitters on their own bullshit.

Anthropogenic (human origin) "climate change" is literally impossible as explained by the Laws of Thermodynamics. Humans (and human emissions) are but a tiny TINY little blip on the global scale of thermodynamics.


Next generation? Current generation works VERY well and is VERY safe. Furthermore, it DWARFS the other energy sources in terms of energy density. But unfortunately, nuclear power generation has been stigmatized by emotional and illogical rhetoric.

But, yeah... unicorn farts (wind) and rainbows (solar) aren't going to cut it, EVER.... again.... due to the Laws of Thermodynamics.

In lay terms... You can't get MORE of something out of LESS of something. It's also known as the Law of Conservation of Energy. (1st Law of Thermodynamics)
We will never see a new nuke plant like those built in the 60s-80s. It's certainly true the laws of physics aren't changing but reactors for power generation applications will. Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) will be smaller and identical. Easier, faster to build. Massive custom designed plants like B&W and CE built in the past are over. That's what I meant by next generation. Alternative methods for cooling are also a likely option. Liquid metals like sodium and lead are possible, also molten salt. Big Giant Heads in labs all around the world are working on that as we speak. The traditional water cooling and sucking in massive amounts of circ water from rivers or even sea water thru condensers is not impossible - but unlikely.

I worked for the mother of all nuke and boiler engineering companies, B&W, and interned with Stone and Webster. But nearly all of my time there was in process manufacturing - refining, steel, marine boilers (non nuke), and fossil fuel power generation. A few chemical plants tossed in. B&W's nuke biz was in a funk after TMI. The nuke division closed ranks and weren't bringing in any recruits when I was a new hire.

I saw the ignorance of the general public regarding nuclear power first hand. When I told people who I worked for it was like being the guy sporting a MAGA hat at a LGBTQ anti-gun rally sponsored by BLM. People actually believed the China Syndrome was possible.

Some shut down plants could be restarted but that's super expensive. I don't think we will witness much of that. Depends largely on the age of the plant.

Climate change? It's foolish to say humans dont affect their environment but a changing climate and cycles of warm and cold have been the way of the world for millions of years. No matter what's melting ice or raising sea levels, I dont think humans alone are causing it. The Mediterranean Sea completely dried up for 700,000 years then came back. All the continents were once attached to each other. Go figure.

The question is... where will Patriot Gun Builders be 1000 years from now? :)
 
Last edited:
It's foolish to say humans dont affect their environment but a changing climate and cycles of warm and cold have been the way of the world for millions of years.
Never said that. I don't think ANYONE has said THAT. But the notion of human output affecting climate??? Scientifically preposterous when considering the amount of energy involved in global climate. And when I say "scientifically," I mean actual Science, not the media's notion of "science."

As I'm sure you know, the military has notoriously FAILED to try to intentionally affect, direct, weaponize, or harness even local weather on a very short term basis.

The Earth's climate patterns are affected by FAR bigger forces than the puny human race could ever generate.
 
Yes, nuclear power is one of the best possible energy sources we have at hand. And we are being rather foolish about not utilizing it.

Unfortunately, there probably isn't a human alive who has not heard of at least one of these three places: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. I figure most would be hard pressed to point to any of them on the globe. But you can be damn sure they fear them and are very hostile to nuclear power in their own backyard as a result.

There are a few other serious nuclear oopsies scattered around the world that most would not know about except for the history geeks... like Mayak in Russia, Calk River in Canada, Idaho Falls in the US, and Windscale in the UK... maybe it is better that they don't.... but the afore mentioned big three screw-ups have soured the public at large to embracing nuclear power. It may not be fair, but it is what it is.

The other obstacle is the ongoing question of what to do with the waste. Nobody wants it in their backyard. It's NIMBY-ism at its worst. We also have a few reactors that have, unfortunately, ended up on the bottom of the worlds oceans. Unless they have been recovered on the Q.T... The reactors for Thresher and Scorpion are still the bottom and may one day pose a threat that warrants somehow cleaning them up.

So, the way I see it, nuclear power has such a bad image in the public mind that we might as well ignore its potential. Like I said, life isn't fair.

The risks posed by a coal or natural gas fired power plant are easier to grasp by a public that repeatedly demonstrates a lack of technical prowess. They can play with their phones with aplomb, but are generally clue-less when it comes to what heats the teakettle that keeps the lights on and the cell phones charged.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, there probably isn't a human alive who has not heard of one of at least one of these three places: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. I figure most would be hard pressed to point to any of them on the globe. But you can be damn sure they fear them and are very hostile to nuclear power in their own back yard as a result.

So, the way I see it, nuclear power has such a bad image in the public mind that we might as well ignore it potential. Like I said, life isn't fair.

The risks posed by a coal or natural gas fired power plant are easier to grasp by a public

To the contrary... the public has NO grasp on the ACTUAL risks of coal vs nuclear.

deaths-by-energy-source.jpg


Coal has caused the most deaths. By FAR.

Shit... WIND energy production is more deadly than nuclear!

Here's another graph that's easier to understand:

1707272529308.png


Actual facts and actual Science.
mr bill snl GIF
 
Last edited:
This isn't a disagreement on facts, though I would be very hesitant to use the source you cited.

This is about how the public perception of a threat has been driving policy.

I will dial back the way-back machine to give you two relevant examples from my personal experience to explain what I mean:

I happened to live in Pennsylvania when Three Mile Island took place. I watched people behave badly, up close and personal. I guess timing of the release of the movie "The China Syndrome" probably factored into it. There was panic, and calls to close all of the nuclear power plants in the state, including the relatively brand new Beaver Valley power plant. The reaction on the NRC and the politicians also went a long way to stoke the fear, despite the actual damage being zero deaths, and probably no illnesses associated with the accident.

I also happened to live in Pennsylvania the night Union Carbide gassed 3,500 people to death in Bhopal, India. The reaction was completely different, even though the local Union Carbide plant made exactly the same chemical (methyl isocyanate) in greater volume than the plant in India. The reaction was "Oh isn't that sad... I hope they don't close the plant and lay off all those people". No fear that the plant a few miles away could be a far deadlier threat than a reactor fifty miles away. Beyond a few editorials by the media, not much reaction at all.

That's what I mean. The perception of the threat is what matters. A nuclear plant has a hiccup and people go bat-shit crazy. A worker gets crushed by a rotary hopper at a coal-fired plant, it is just another accident, tragic for the worker and family, but everybody just shrugs it off.

I don't see the public getting over the perception of nuclear power being unacceptably and inherently dangerous any time in the foreseeable future.
 
Who needs fission? This is right around the corner.
Screenshot 2024-02-07 at 2.12.31 AM.png

I was an engineering student when TMI happened. I was working when the operators at Peach Bottom were discovered to be sleeping thru their shifts. Spent fuel remains a problem. Most spent fuel is stored in dry casks on site. The more recent used rods in spent fuel ponds also on site. Uncle Sam never full delivered on long term storage.

I once suggested that in the visitors center of each nuke plant, the utility company give away one spent pellet to each visitor. It is (or was) common back in the day to give visitors a fake uranium fuel pellet glued to a card as part of the visitors experience. Problem solved! I have lots of other really good ideas.

I recall all the hubbub about Diablo Canyon being built on a fault line and the safety concerns with the Maine Yankee. I believe Diablo Canyon is being decommissioned this year if it hasn't already.

I think the Westinghouse/AC long lines power distribution system and large, centralized power plants are behind us. A more likely scenario is residential goes solar and the concept of 'power parks' that cluster industrial facilities around small power generation facilities (see previous mention of SMRs) is the most likely trajectory. Wind... it will always be around but the cost and recurring maintenance of turbines is not as great as some think it is.

I built a 10,000 watt solar panel system. Actually two separate systems.... 6k/4k. One for my pool pump and pool area lighting and cabana. The other, smaller setup for a refrigerator in my garage and well pump and water treatment. The average combined daily load for both systems in the summer months when the pool pump runs a lot is about 7000 watts. I run everything off the batteries and the solar panels keep them adequately charged. So far, everything keeps running even on cloudy days. I installed auto transfer switches that detect loss of power on the battery side and switch to the grid vs the usual setup which works the opposite way. I have a portable 8k watt propane generator that can charge the batteries - just in case. I have to plug that in and turn it on manually.

Solar power is not cheap. I didnt do this to save money. I did it to assure I have power for a refrigerator and can flush the toilets when there's an outage. The ROI on the pool is tanglible though. It costs $120/month to run that pump and filter system off the grid. It pays for itself in about 5 years and the panels last 20. The integral battery/inverter is guaranteed for ten years.

NOTE: I circulate the pool water year round. I found that the cost and effort to start the pool up in the Spring if I shut it down in the winter months isn't worth the time and cost. I do reduce the cycle time for the pump in winter and that cuts back on chemicals needed.
 
Last edited:
This isn't a disagreement on facts, though I would be very hesitant to use the source you cited.

This is about how the public perception of a threat has been driving policy.

I will dial back the way-back machine to give you two relevant examples from my personal experience to explain what I mean:

I happened to live in Pennsylvania when Three Mile Island took place. I watched people behave badly, up close and personal. I guess timing of the release of the movie "The China Syndrome" probably factored into it. There was panic, and calls to close all of the nuclear power plants in the state, including the relatively brand new Beaver Valley power plant. The reaction on the NRC and the politicians also went a long way to stoke the fear, despite the actual damage being zero deaths, and probably no illnesses associated with the accident.

I also happened to live in Pennsylvania the night Union Carbide gassed 3,500 people to death in Bhopal, India. The reaction was completely different, even though the local Union Carbide plant made exactly the same chemical (methyl isocyanate) in greater volume than the plant in India. The reaction was "Oh isn't that sad... I hope they don't close the plant and lay off all those people". No fear that the plant a few miles away could be a far deadlier threat than a reactor fifty miles away. Beyond a few editorials by the media, not much reaction at all.

That's what I mean. The perception of the threat is what matters. A nuclear plant has a hiccup and people go bat-shit crazy. A worker gets crushed by a rotary hopper at a coal-fired plant, it is just another accident, tragic for the worker and family, but everybody just shrugs it off.

I don't see the public getting over the perception of nuclear power being unacceptably and inherently dangerous any time in the foreseeable future.
That's fine. They don't have to get over their irrational fears driven by the Fallacy of Misleading Vividness. They don't have to get over their irrational fears of flying or guns, either. But don't tell me that those things are more dangerous. They're not. They're orders of magnitude LESS dangerous.

But then they need to shut the fuck up about "alternative" energy sources. Shut the fuck up about their FANTASIES about powering the world with unicorn farts and rainbows. And shut the fuck up about EVs being even a remotely viable niche form of transportation.

Don't like my sources? Find another CREDIBLE source that demonstrates nuclear is more dangerous to human life. I'll wait, but I know the data indicates exactly the opposite. By source, I don't mean Hollywood movies. Look up the DATA. Show me the DATA. Not news stories.

I will ONLY accept DATA. Not stories about personal experiences or other anecdotes.
 
Last edited:
I built a 10,000 watt solar panel system. Actually two separate systems.... 6k/4k. One for my pool pump and pool area lighting and cabana. The other, smaller setup for a refrigerator in my garage and well pump and water treatment. The average combined daily load for both systems in the summer months when the pool pump runs a lot is about 7000 watts. I run everything off the batteries and the solar panels keep them adequately charged. So far, everything keeps running even on cloudy days. I installed auto transfer switches that detect loss of power on the battery side and switch to the grid vs the usual setup which works the opposite way. I have a portable 8k watt propane generator that can charge the batteries - just in case. I have to plug that in and turn it on manually.
We have a 25kw back-up generator and it will NOT run the whole house. We have to be selective about which appliances are run. For example... the oven isn't even on the back-up circuit, because it wouldn't simultaneously run with the central a/c, etc.

Another interesting tidbit about solar in this state. Insurance companies are EXCLUDING roof storm damage claims that have solar panels. Rut-roh!

Some insurance companies will drop you entirely, if you install solar panels.



Turns out, solar panels are like sails in a hurricane. Also other risks, both financial and physical. Gosh, who could have seen that coming?!?? LOL! Dammit, Physics AGAIN!
 
Last edited:
This isn't a disagreement on facts, though I would be very hesitant to use the source you cited.

This is about how the public perception of a threat has been driving policy.
. . .
I don't see the public getting over the perception of nuclear power being unacceptably and inherently dangerous any time in the foreseeable future.
American public perception IS the problem and if public perception is what is keeping society from truly going forward with prosperity, then THAT is what real LEADERSHIP needs to be working on, not perpetuating the Fallacy of Misleading Vividness of "The Squad" and all the other imbecile "politicians" that know jack shit about science or economics. . . OR truth! :mad:
 
. . .

American public perception IS the problem and if public perception is what is keeping society from truly going forward with prosperity, then THAT is what real LEADERSHIP needs to be working on, not perpetuating the Fallacy of Misleading Vividness of "The Squad" and all the other imbecile "politicians" that know jack shit about science or economics. . . OR truth! :mad:
Like I said.... Perceive whatever you want to PERCEIVE - or hallucinate. But they need to stop pretending their DELUSION is "science" because a talking head on TV said it was. And they should REALLY shut the fuck up with their GIBBERISH when they're talking to someone who actually has formal scientific education.... or has simply availed themselves to the actual DATA.

I'm FINE with people living in their own delusional world... until they try to IMPOSE it upon ME.
 
Last edited:
We have a 25kw back-up generator and it will NOT run the whole house. We have to be selective about which appliances are run. For example... the oven isn't even on the back-up circuit, because it wouldn't simultaneously run with the central a/c, etc.

Another interesting tidbit about solar in this state. Insurance companies are EXCLUDING roof storm damage claims that have solar panels. Rut-roh!

Some insurance companies will drop you entirely, if you install solar panels.


Turns out, solar panels are like sails in a hurricane. Gosh, who could have seen that coming?!?? LOL! Dammit, Physics AGAIN!
A 25kw generator should power everything in a large home. 10,000 is typical. An electric oven .... I might not consider that essential service but a 25kw generator should be able to handle it.

You can always fire up the grill. If you have a natural disaster, nobody is going to be baking muffins or cooking a 20 lb turkey, right?

I think it has become standard in any hurricane zone that insurers run away from traditional solar panels. Risk depends on the mounting choices, the roof type and the angle of the roof line well as the panels. Mine are on their own platform with the exception of the well pump panels. Those are bolted to 4x6 beams on the roof of the well shed. The roof is lean-to style and angled downward at 15 degrees. 15 degrees is not optimal for panels but it works and keeps them almost flush with the roof surface. I've had 80 mph gusts and it holds firm. Above that... 100 MPH+ nothing on a home is safe. Not even your windows.

My traditional two heat pumps have a few years of life left in them. My plan is to replace them with geothermal. Way cheaper to run. It can be as much as 50% less in terms of power consumption. Geothermal is more expensive to buy and install but they last 25 vs. 10 years. I've debated going with a propane whole house generator vs. solar vs. using a future EV as a backup power source. The F150E for example can run the essential services in a typical home for 2-3 days. Roughly 9kw. Of course... once that's depleted you can't drive it anywhere :) IN terms of cost and convenience propane is the logical choice. The problem is getting someone to deliver propane to my home. Anything less than a 500 gallon propane tank is a not going to cut it for a whole house generator. It's likely to drink about a gallon an hour.
 
Last edited:
A 25kw generator should power everything in a large home. 10,000 is typical. An electric oven .... I might not consider that essential service but a 25kw generator should be able to handle it.
Nope. A 25kw will NOT power everything (if we're including an oven, clothes dryer) while also powering a central a/c. Ask me how I know. :) And our home would not be considered "large."

You can always fire up the grill. If you have a natural disaster, nobody is going to be baking muffins or cooking a 20 lb turkey, right?
True. We're not much for cooking anyway! LOL!

Above that... 100 MPH+ nothing on a home is safe. Not even your windows.
100 mph is nothing around here. After "Andrew" in Miami, the hurricane building codes were changed big time. Our home experienced 90+mph straight line winds during one storm and not even a single roof shingle lifted.

. The problem is getting someone to deliver propane to my home. Anything less than a 500 gallon propane tank is a not going to cut it for a whole house generator. It's likely to drink about a gallon an hour.
Yep... 500 gallon tank, which actually has a 400 gallon capacity, since they only fill them to 80%. Based on experience and tracking, we could go about 10 days before going empty. But I shut the system down at midnight and turn it back on at 6am. We "go dark" for 6 hours every night. Saves fuel, and gives the generator a rest.
 
Last edited:
Nope. A 25kw will NOT power everything (if we're including an oven, clothes dryer) while also powering a central a/c. Ask me how I know. :) And our home would not be considered "large."


True. We're not much for cooking anyway! LOL!


100 mph is nothing around here. After "Andrew" in Miami, the hurricane building codes were changed big time. Our home experienced 90+mph straight line winds during one storm and not even a single roof shingle lifted.


Yep... 500 gallon tank, which actually has a 400 gallon capacity, since they only fill them to 80%. Based on experience and tracking, we could go about 10 days before going empty. But I shut the system down at midnight and turn it back on at 6am. We "go dark" for 6 hours every night. Saves fuel, and gives the generator a rest.
Good grief. How many tons is your AC?

Living a normal day, using all the appliances and lighting and two heat pumps, my running load is 18,330 and the surge/starting watts is 26,000... which is a not gonna happen sort of thing. I cant imagine turning on every electrical device, light and appliance at the same time during a storm or other outage. My AC is 3 tons. A 3 BR home. All electric. No gas appliances.

The one thing a lot of people don't figure in is the sump pump. 900-1000 watts. And if it's raining it may be running constantly.
 
Back
Top