ZeroEm
1 MW
The new trend is not to deny it anymore just don't talk about it. Ok back to my facts it's warming faster than the oil companies crystal balls predicted.
Hillhater said:There is no debate that the climate is constantly changing….
…. A consensus on climate change and its human cause exists.
But a “consensus” on its cause is not scientific proof…!
..if it were proof, they would not need to declare a “consensus” !
by Hillhater » Jul 05 2022 2:25am
My understanding in science, trumps your mindless faith in a consensus of doomsday believers , every time.!
..but dont let me stop you self flagelating .
I began doing this thing at work, when my coworkers complain about temps I just go "Yeah it's frocking climate change" instead of allowing the message to get warped. They either agree with me, or stop talking completely; I began doing it to not only harden myself but also to smash aside their safe spaces, and so far not a single one has tried to refute me. It's liberating.ZeroEm said:The new trend is not to deny it anymore just don't talk about it. Ok back to my facts it's warming faster than the oil companies crystal balls predicted.
Toorbough ULL-Zeveigh said:c'mon people, thems oceans aren't gonna fill up with plastic by themselves.
petrochem plant grand opening
![]()
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_G._Heft
https://slate.com/culture/2022/06/american-flag-history-scam-designer-robert-heft-50-stars.html
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/betsy-ross-likely-didnt-sew-the-first-us-flag
[youtube]e0HGEZXTy8Y[/youtube]
by calab » Jul 07 2022 12:04am
All I know is it costs $35/foot for a 4' wide pathway to be built, but how much for graded and crushed stoned pathway?
The city put in big rock gravel, its no good, need crushed stoned man.
The biggest problem is the grocery store packaging for their own items, and the packaged items how they are packed. Really needs to be addressed because straws and bags are just the start. We can do all we can, pay trillions, meanwhile Billy Joe next door gets to do what he like, drain his oil down the sewer and burn his garbage. No fun at all.
1,279,216MWh / 8760_hours_in_a_year = 146MW average power output.Average Annual Production (years 2015-2019) ---> 1,279,216
the organizations will take steps toward deploying a first NuScale VOYGRTM 6-module, 462 MWe, power plant in Romania as early as 2027/2028. Romania has the potential to accommodate the first deployment of SMRs in Europe and to become a catalyst for SMRs in the region, as well as a base for supporting operatorship of this new technology in other countries.
The first NuScale power module is planned to go into operation in Idaho in 2029. It will be what the company calls a VOYGR 6 — a six-module plant that will produce 462 megawatts of power. For comparison, coal-burning plants in this region are rated from about 1,300 megawatts such as the Mountaineer plant in Mason County up to the 2,300-megawatt John Amos power plant in Putnam County, West Virginia.
NuScale plans to build plants with four, six or 12 reactor modules, with each module producing 77 megawatts. Thus the plants’ production can range from 308 megawatts to 924 megawatts, Colbert said.
The small reactors have two advantages over the larger ones at existing nuclear plants, Colbert said: the fundamental technology is the same and there is a well-established supply chain for them.
The smaller reactors can be built in a factory and transported to the power plant site, he said.
“A large reactor might take six years to build. We’re looking at three years for our reactor in a four-, six- or 12-module configuration,” he said.
While replacing coal-burning units with nuclear units on the site of an existing or former coal-burning plant is possible, it probably won’t be done by utilities, Colbert said.
“They will need to see the plants can be built on time and on budget. Investor-owned utilities must justify their rates to utility regulators and to their investors and rating agencies.” he said, “They just want to see it proven out, so they probably won’t be second movers. They may be third or fourth movers.”
Construction of the 2 MWt TMSR-LF1 reactor began in September 2018 and was reportedly completed in August 2021. The prototype was scheduled to be completed in 2024, but work was accelerated.
……
If the TMSR-LF1 proves successful, China plans to build a reactor with a capacity of 373 MWt by 2030.
As this type of reactor does not require water for cooling, it will be able to operate in desert regions. The Chinese government has plans to build more across the sparsely populated deserts and plains of western China, complementing wind and solar plants and reducing China's reliance on coal-fired power stations. The reactor may also be built outside China in Belt and Road Initiative nations.
The liquid fuel design is descended from the 1960s Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the USA.
Same core technology, different design and implimentation.ZeroEm said:Are these reactors the same one's Bill Gates has been working on?
No joke! The lack of pressurized anything in these new generations of reactors isn't just massively safe, it will also drop the costs by an enormous fraction since you no longer need thousands of pounds of pressure rated metals. I imagine keeping the molten sodium in an anhydrous environment is far easier than said pressure vessels, especially with something like Fluoride instead of sodium.ZeroEm said:Have been reading about molten salt for years. Glad they are putting it to use, better than water.
…The conventional engineering wisdom is that there will be a 10-15% loss of output for a turbine placed less than 2 km downwind of another.
ArcVera is suggesting that new wind farms could experience losses of as much as 25% at a distance of 10 km(!)…..
Hillhater said:https://climatechangedispatch.com/offshore-wind-much-more-expensive-than-previously-thought/
…The conventional engineering wisdom is that there will be a 10-15% loss of output for a turbine placed less than 2 km downwind of another.
ArcVera is suggesting that new wind farms could experience losses of as much as 25% at a distance of 10 km(!)…..
The increase in energy output from a given installation may seem modest — it’s about 1.2 percent overall, and 3 percent for optimal wind speeds. But the algorithm can be deployed at any wind farm, and the number of wind farms is rapidly growing to meet accelerated climate goals. If that 1.2 percent energy increase were applied to all the world’s existing wind farms, it would be the equivalent of adding more than 3,600 new wind turbines, or enough to power about 3 million homes, and a total gain to power producers of almost a billion dollars per year, the researchers say. And all of this for essentially no cost.