If you're not happy with the first set of numbers that were given to you, google em
Which is why I asked the question in the first place. That very pretty website full of fake dials showed coal usage smaller than the smallest unit size of a coal fired power station that still seems to be operating 24/7 on at least one unit. Something is wrong somewhere. Either the very pretty post-literate website is wrong or an entire power station was effectively mothballed very recently without the green fanfare you would expect to accompany that happening in the middle of elections (which I consider incredibly unlikely though it is possible). Hence the question after the link where it just didn't seem to add up.
amazing isn't it that you see a long time reader
You are only one of two posters who have replied to more than ten (or even more then a couple) of my posts this year so it's pretty fucking obvious. It appears that you are holding me to a far higher standard than you would like to be treated yourself - why go for the attack just because of a vague questioning post-midnight post that isn't fucking perfect?
Turbogenerator sets at older large thermal power stations are typically 300MW
The units at Cordemais are not. What's with the long lecture? I used to work in the electricity industry so it's incredibly annoying to have a coder or accountant out of their depth delivering a condesending lecture based on no more depth of the topic that they got off wikipedia thirty seconds ago but didn't fully understand.
I really don't understand your idee fixe that France is secretly burning a lot of coal to feed its electricity requirements and faking the numbers to make its nuclear output look good
I didn't accuse France, I'm asking YOU. There's nothing secret about Cordemais and it's nothing to be ashamed of. The question here is why the numbers don't add up and if the very pretty source you are using is a fit choice instead of a more informative and accurate one.
With the greatest possible respect (since I'm sure you are good at something) you should be aware that if the smallest unit is 600MW then that is the smallest amount that can be produced if only one unit at the power station is running. I really don't get how you can "explain" anything about the topic when you haven't even got a grasp of that much.
The pretty website you linked to - it wouldn't happen to be a nuclear energy advocacy site would it? I think you've been conned.
I think the Japanese are already doing that. Hot enough and you only have NOx to worry about instead of some of the really nasty stuff you get in a normal plastic fire. There's a few "co-generation" incinerators around the world, some a few decades old now.
Two hundred years from now people will be strip mining and capturing all the plastic that we've littered the planet with, to recover and reuse it.
It's very energy intensive to break it down so your suggestion is unlikely while we still have easily accessible gas, oil and coal. Of course the exception is the stuff that can be reused in it's current form like PET, where grinding it up and not a lot of heat plus pressure can make something useful.
From the totally correct but doesn't matter department.
The "bring-your-own-bottle" machines at the grocery store do not use reverse osmosis. They use cheap activated charcoal filters, which do not remove fluoride even when they are changed regularly
The fluoride doesn't matter (which is why the obsession was used to make a character look ridiculous in "Dr Strangelove") so the charcoal is enough to get rid of annoyances. I've been to places where people live off artesian water with a bit of fluoride and they don't get poisoned by it and die young (good teeth too, but maybe that's diet instead of fluoride). Seriously guys, unless you live somewhere like Flint with lead compounds in the water boiling is enough (though reverse osmosis is great for camping).
The bottled water craze keeps reminding me that Evian is naive spelled backwards.
A bit full on as a jump-on response for someone asking for clarification when posting after midnight don't you think? What has got you so angry and thin-skinned? Those dials and so on are all so pretty but I'd prefer a bit of old fashioned text about capacity instead of a dynamic site that is going to give a different answer at different times.
One single plant, Cordemais is 2.6GW base load, with a minimum unit size of 600MW, and there are others. Base load of course means going all the time apart from shutdowns every few years.
That very pretty site you've linked to, which now appears to be built to distract, has it at around 330MW for coal total generation in France. Why such a divergence from reality? Cordemais isn't totally shut down so why isn't it showing up?
You've been conned and I really do not appreciated you trying to transmit your ignorance.
You again? His numbers, and that very pretty site, have a hole of a few GW of coal that certainly exists. Something is clearly amiss with the very pretty site.
Which is why I chose them as examples and used the words "are very similar to each other". The analogy of comparing them to spoken languages is completely broken in such cases. It takes a long time to learn a new spoken language - coding not so much since there's a good chance that a coder already knows something similar and there is nowhere near the amount of syntax as in a spoken language anyway.
Through ten metres of frozen ground? Not happening. If it did we wouldn't be finding those shallow frozen mammoths then would we - something would have dug down to eat them. What's with the "the one in need of education" insults from idiots these days? Is it some form of projection?
The part where there is a very large difference between some and nearly all. Also you'll find that 40GW is wildly inaccurate and theoretical at best instead of what is actually running at any one time. Where did you get that number from?
The barriers to entry for new reactors are absurd to the point of ridiculousness. The regulations are insane.
Not everywhere. Things are still moving very very slowly in Russia, China and India where that excuse does not apply in any way at all. Maybe you should give up on that tired old excuse and try addressing the subject matter directly?
I get from global warming alarmists
Whine whine whine - seriously? They have nothing to do with the issue here.
My basic point is that its silly to take any zero emissions power generation capability offline
Shutting things down when they become too difficult to run effectively is silly in what way? Don't let blind ideology get in the way of practicality especially when you are accusing irrelevant others of doing the same.
What Sweden does with regard to the CIA has nothing to do with the legality of this case.
It has nothing to do with legality but everything to do with why Assange says was the reason he absconded. Maybe he's paranoid about expecting the Swedish authorities to hand him over to be flown out by the CIA and tortured, but they've done it to at least two people before.
The rape charges have been confirmed in every real life court... The Swedish prosecutor was unable to satisfactorily question Assange
Make up your mind, is it one thing or the other? Also what's with hinting that he's already been convicted when he hasn't even been actually charged but instead was just wanted for questioning?
Yes back then the allegations were sexual misconduct. My understanding is that allegations have now evolved to one allegation of rape.
Different translations of the same thing - translated as 4th degree rape which doesn't have a corresponding crime in the USA so sexual misconduct kind of fits. It sounds worse as rape even though it wouldn't be called that anywhere in English but it's handy to inflate the supposed crime for those who want to push an agenda to punish a publisher of inconvenient leaks.
You are writing as if the rule of law would be followed. Consider "extraordinary rendition" - Assange is considered to be in the same domain as the people who were subjected to that and not in the legal domain. The silly case that's never going to trial despite evidence being gathered was just a pretext, because the evidence is still not even enough to lay charges. He was going to be extradited for questioning about something that is not even a crime where you live and not for trial remember.
there really was no threat to extradite him to the U.S.
The threat at the time was "extraordinary rendition" such as what occurred to Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery from Bromma airport in Stockholm. Please do try to keep up.
It's a goalpost shift to absurdity to pretend that a proposal to shut down reactors at the end of their planned service life (or beyond in some cases) is "turning off a working nuclear plant". Why are you doing it? Are your arguments so weak that you have to resort to fantasy? Personally I think you would push your agenda far better if you said something about benefits of new plant instead of pretending that reactors at the end of their service life are just as perfect as on day one.
Slashdot Mirror
Hence the "unless" above.
Of course, but untreated water is sometimes a different story.
Incorrect.
Which is why I asked the question in the first place.
That very pretty website full of fake dials showed coal usage smaller than the smallest unit size of a coal fired power station that still seems to be operating 24/7 on at least one unit. Something is wrong somewhere. Either the very pretty post-literate website is wrong or an entire power station was effectively mothballed very recently without the green fanfare you would expect to accompany that happening in the middle of elections (which I consider incredibly unlikely though it is possible).
Hence the question after the link where it just didn't seem to add up.
You are only one of two posters who have replied to more than ten (or even more then a couple) of my posts this year so it's pretty fucking obvious.
It appears that you are holding me to a far higher standard than you would like to be treated yourself - why go for the attack just because of a vague questioning post-midnight post that isn't fucking perfect?
The units at Cordemais are not.
What's with the long lecture? I used to work in the electricity industry so it's incredibly annoying to have a coder or accountant out of their depth delivering a condesending lecture based on no more depth of the topic that they got off wikipedia thirty seconds ago but didn't fully understand.
I didn't accuse France, I'm asking YOU. There's nothing secret about Cordemais and it's nothing to be ashamed of.
The question here is why the numbers don't add up and if the very pretty source you are using is a fit choice instead of a more informative and accurate one.
With the greatest possible respect (since I'm sure you are good at something) you should be aware that if the smallest unit is 600MW then that is the smallest amount that can be produced if only one unit at the power station is running.
I really don't get how you can "explain" anything about the topic when you haven't even got a grasp of that much.
The pretty website you linked to - it wouldn't happen to be a nuclear energy advocacy site would it? I think you've been conned.
I think the Japanese are already doing that. Hot enough and you only have NOx to worry about instead of some of the really nasty stuff you get in a normal plastic fire.
There's a few "co-generation" incinerators around the world, some a few decades old now.
It's very energy intensive to break it down so your suggestion is unlikely while we still have easily accessible gas, oil and coal.
Of course the exception is the stuff that can be reused in it's current form like PET, where grinding it up and not a lot of heat plus pressure can make something useful.
The fluoride doesn't matter (which is why the obsession was used to make a character look ridiculous in "Dr Strangelove") so the charcoal is enough to get rid of annoyances. I've been to places where people live off artesian water with a bit of fluoride and they don't get poisoned by it and die young (good teeth too, but maybe that's diet instead of fluoride).
Seriously guys, unless you live somewhere like Flint with lead compounds in the water boiling is enough (though reverse osmosis is great for camping).
The bottled water craze keeps reminding me that Evian is naive spelled backwards.
A bit full on as a jump-on response for someone asking for clarification when posting after midnight don't you think? What has got you so angry and thin-skinned?
Those dials and so on are all so pretty but I'd prefer a bit of old fashioned text about capacity instead of a dynamic site that is going to give a different answer at different times.
One single plant, Cordemais is 2.6GW base load, with a minimum unit size of 600MW, and there are others.
Base load of course means going all the time apart from shutdowns every few years.
That very pretty site you've linked to, which now appears to be built to distract, has it at around 330MW for coal total generation in France.
Why such a divergence from reality?
Cordemais isn't totally shut down so why isn't it showing up?
You've been conned and I really do not appreciated you trying to transmit your ignorance.
You again? His numbers, and that very pretty site, have a hole of a few GW of coal that certainly exists.
Something is clearly amiss with the very pretty site.
There you go again. He hasn't been charged as yet.
Which is why I chose them as examples and used the words "are very similar to each other".
The analogy of comparing them to spoken languages is completely broken in such cases. It takes a long time to learn a new spoken language - coding not so much since there's a good chance that a coder already knows something similar and there is nowhere near the amount of syntax as in a spoken language anyway.
Through ten metres of frozen ground? Not happening. If it did we wouldn't be finding those shallow frozen mammoths then would we - something would have dug down to eat them.
What's with the "the one in need of education" insults from idiots these days? Is it some form of projection?
The part where there is a very large difference between some and nearly all.
Also you'll find that 40GW is wildly inaccurate and theoretical at best instead of what is actually running at any one time. Where did you get that number from?
Not everywhere.
Things are still moving very very slowly in Russia, China and India where that excuse does not apply in any way at all. Maybe you should give up on that tired old excuse and try addressing the subject matter directly?
Whine whine whine - seriously? They have nothing to do with the issue here.
Shutting things down when they become too difficult to run effectively is silly in what way? Don't let blind ideology get in the way of practicality especially when you are accusing irrelevant others of doing the same.
It has nothing to do with legality but everything to do with why Assange says was the reason he absconded. Maybe he's paranoid about expecting the Swedish authorities to hand him over to be flown out by the CIA and tortured, but they've done it to at least two people before.
Make up your mind, is it one thing or the other? Also what's with hinting that he's already been convicted when he hasn't even been actually charged but instead was just wanted for questioning?
Different translations of the same thing - translated as 4th degree rape which doesn't have a corresponding crime in the USA so sexual misconduct kind of fits. It sounds worse as rape even though it wouldn't be called that anywhere in English but it's handy to inflate the supposed crime for those who want to push an agenda to punish a publisher of inconvenient leaks.
He's never been charged so how can they be dropped?
Sometimes I'm not even sure he controls his own mouth.
You are writing as if the rule of law would be followed. Consider "extraordinary rendition" - Assange is considered to be in the same domain as the people who were subjected to that and not in the legal domain. The silly case that's never going to trial despite evidence being gathered was just a pretext, because the evidence is still not even enough to lay charges. He was going to be extradited for questioning about something that is not even a crime where you live and not for trial remember.
The threat at the time was "extraordinary rendition" such as what occurred to Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery from Bromma airport in Stockholm.
Please do try to keep up.
It's a goalpost shift to absurdity to pretend that a proposal to shut down reactors at the end of their planned service life (or beyond in some cases) is "turning off a working nuclear plant".
Why are you doing it? Are your arguments so weak that you have to resort to fantasy?
Personally I think you would push your agenda far better if you said something about benefits of new plant instead of pretending that reactors at the end of their service life are just as perfect as on day one.