Green Groups Thwarting Geothermal Solutions to Energy Problems

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

17 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

 mostly in SUVs which have a huge appetite for gasoline,

A US centric statement. Gas guzzling SUVs are not selling well in Europe or China.

Oh and you better watch out because SUV sales in the US tanked in October: https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2021-us-suv-sales-figures-by-model/

Edited November 3, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

17 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

You are being very funny again, just like your wild claims about the percentage of energy supplied by fossil fuels (which is 84%, not 79% as you claimed)...

79% is correct for the US. We are showing the world that it is possible for a major economy to move the needle.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

2 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

79% is correct for the US. We are showing the world that it is possible for a major economy to move the needle.

Still a looong way to standards of Ukraine

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

8 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Still a looong way to standards of Ukraine

I think Eastern Europe is way more interested in nuclear. They know that mass renewables installation means skyrocketing energy cost. No matter what some dumbass council says about the cost being low, the reality is that the cost of power in Germany is $300 per MWh on the residential end. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

79% is correct for the US. We are showing the world that it is possible for a major economy to move the needle.

Oh yea, by moving 5%. In ten years. With no reason to believe that the growth won't stagnate. 

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

11 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

A US centric statement. Gas guzzling SUVs are not selling well in Europe or China.

Oh and you better watch out because SUV sales in the US tanked in October: https://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2021-us-suv-sales-figures-by-model/

Probably nothing to do with high gas prices. Right? Right. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Probably nothing to do with high gas prices. Right? Right. 

It is very clear that you either don't bother reading posts or also have terrible reading comprehension skills. I have repeatedly stated that high gas prices would lead to a decrease in ICE.  Ecocharger claimed that was incorrect. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

18 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Oh yea, by moving 5%. In ten years. With no reason to believe that the growth won't stagnate. 

Growth will continue if we continue to do what we have been doing and not start spending our money on the nuclear boondoggle that you recommend.

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

3 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It is very clear that you either don't bother reading posts or also have terrible reading comprehension skills. I have repeatedly stated that high gas prices would lead to a decrease in ICE.  Ecocharger claimed that was incorrect. 

Good, good. Except that a decline in SUV sales does not automatically imply increased demand for EV's. You're jumping ahead. My comprehension skills are fine. You need more evidence. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Good, good. Except that a decline in SUV sales does not automatically imply increased demand for EV's. You're jumping ahead. My comprehension skills are fine. You need more evidence. 

I have presented the evidence many times in the form of increasing sales of EVs. What about all those posts don't you comprehend?

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

Just now, Jay McKinsey said:

Growth will continue if we continue to do what we have been doing and not start spending our money on the nuclear boondoggle that you recommend.

Why can't the cost of these plants decline in the same way solar has?

I'd like to ask you, if nuclear plants stayed within their budgets, would you be in favor of them? Or do you dislike nuclear for other reasons?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

5 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Why can't the cost of these plants decline in the same way solar has?

I'd like to ask you, if nuclear plants stayed within their budgets, would you be in favor of them? Or do you dislike nuclear for other reasons?

Because they don't decrease in cost. We have decades of evidence to prove that they do not decrease in cost. Solar started declining in cost from day one. There is the occasional regression, like we are seeing right now, but it is understood and only lasts a year or two then begins rapid decreases again.

I only care about the costs. I wish nuclear was economic but it isn't. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

46 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

I think Eastern Europe is way more interested in nuclear. They know that mass renewables installation means skyrocketing energy cost. No matter what some dumbass council says about the cost being low, the reality is that the cost of power in Germany is $300 per MWh on the residential end. 

This was fairly tongue-in-cheek. Ukraine is very much an accident of a decarbonization benchmark

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

23 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

I have presented the evidence many times in the form of increasing sales of EVs. What about all those posts don't you comprehend?

American suburbia is pretty much the only place where you can go 100% EV quick. Whatever the Norwegians claim, they won't make it. Because they largely live in apartment blocks, same as the rest of Europe and don't have the luxury of their own driveway.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

American suburbia is pretty much the only place where you can go 100% EV quick. Whatever the Norwegians claim, they won't make it. Because they largely live in apartment blocks, same as the rest of Europe and don't have the luxury of their own driveway.

It isn't difficult to implement programs of adding charging to parking blocks for apartment buildings. We are doing it here in California.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

44 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

It isn't difficult to implement programs of adding charging to parking blocks for apartment buildings. We are doing it here in California.

1. Do you really think they have nearly as many official parking spaces as they've got apartments? Ha-ha

2. My apartment's current is capped by 25A fuse. The entire 63A per phase is what they allocated to entire block full of 2-3 story townhouses. There is no distribution transformer, we seem to be on the same grid as nearby street lighting (400V phase-to-phase) There may be a way to cajole 80A (2/3 phase load on a 63A neutral), but this is it. I checked and just one 400V quick charger better be able to draw 125A (50 kW datapoint)

This means they will probably have to redo everything. I am in Austria, so my wiring is pretty close to solid implementation of EN wiring (largely based on German VDE) Even that much is not a given everywhere in Europe.

Edited November 3, 2021 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

1. Do you really think they have nearly as many parking spaces as they've got apartments? Ha-ha

2. My apartment's current is capped by 25A fuse. The entire 63A per phase is what they allocated to entire block full of 2-3 story townhouses. There is no distribution transformer, we seem to be on the same grid as nearby street lighting (400V phase-to-phase) There may be a way to cajole 80A (2/3 phase load on a 63A neutral), but this is it. I checked and just one 400V quick charger better be able to draw 125A (50 kW datapoint)

This means they will probably have to redo everything. I am in Austria, so my wiring is pretty close to solid implementation of EN wiring (largely based on German VDE) Even that much is not a given everywhere in Europe.

Apartments only need level 2 charging, 220/240 volt. 7.4kW power is sufficient. Most vehicles only drive a relatively few miles every day and are mostly charged when they come home. 

The transition to EV is a multi decade process, street level 2 will be a subsequent stage.

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

32 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Apartments only need level 2 charging, 220/240 volt. 7.4kW power is sufficient. Most vehicles only drive a relatively few miles every day and are mostly charged when they come home. 

The transition to EV is a multi decade process, street level 2 will be a subsequent stage.

There is no advantage to 230 over 400. We get all three phases to each house/apartment distribution box, but there is no standard household socket for multiphase. Which is kinda stupid. The only thing I've got wired to all three phases is the main stove and it uses permanent wiring. Also abused as the exit bus (that is, if I were to cut off the damn stove, I'd disconnect my place altogether. (Well, not really, since I know the drill

I wouldn't know, I use whatever my car share gives me (it is sometimes electrical)

Edited November 3, 2021 by Andrei Moutchkine

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

On 11/1/2021 at 1:45 AM, turbguy said:

...

(Or perhaps into Scotch Tape fusion).

https://www.technologyreview.com/2008/10/23/217918/x-rays-made-with-scotch-tape/

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

15 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

@nsdp

Interesting

https://www.statista.com/statistics/184754/cost-of-nuclear-electricity-production-in-the-us-since-2000/

Just need to build these plants until we figure out how to do it right. It's worth the cost, considering the alternative. 

Rosatom is building the first production energy-positive fast breeder

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Foundation-set-in-place-for-BREST-reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)

This kind makes the energy marginal cost negative?

[nsdp + 449]

On 11/1/2021 at 12:40 PM, footeab@yahoo.com said:

As far as I can tell, when reviewing patents, is that yes, ZERO work is being done by the US patent office at all.  Leaving EVERYTHING up to the patentee in question to 1) ascertain if their idea is patentable and 2) protect their patent in court as the USPTO is doing shit all nothing from my perspective as a bureaucrat might have to make a distinction/decision and gosh golly gee, that might get their ass fired from their plush do nothing highest paid government job!

Rip van Winkle, More moronic out of date legal statements . You have never head of the WIPO have you. Everything changed March 14,2014.   You are too ill informed to know how the system has changed.

Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)

The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) makes it possible to seek patent protection for an invention simultaneously in each of a large number of countries by filing an "international" patent application. Such an application may be filed by anyone who is a national or resident of a PCT Contracting State. It may generally be filed with the national patent office of the Contracting State of which the applicant is a national or resident or, at the applicant's option, with the International Bureau of WIPO in Geneva. . https://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/pct/

 

If you want a patent issued without BS like you spread around, the applicant files with Zurich, get your PCT and file for registration in any and all of the 150 countries that are treaty members.  You register your WIPO issued PCT with the US Patent Office and that is it.  No Patent appeals, WIPO cuts the US Judicial system out.  Any one who wants to challenge the validity of Zurich's decision has to go to the World Intellectual Property Organization and their rules.

Edited November 3, 2021 by nsdp
link didn't connect

[nsdp + 449]

1 hour ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

There is no advantage to 230 over 400. We get all three phases to each house/apartment distribution box, but there is no standard household socket for multiphase. Which is kinda stupid. The only thing I've got wired to all three phases is the main stove and it uses permanent wiring. Also abused as the exit bus (that is, if I were to cut off the damn stove, I'd disconnect my place altogether. (Well, not really, since I know the drill

I wouldn't know, I use whatever my car share gives me (it is sometimes electrical)

Is your apt 400v hot wire to hot wire plus neutral (single phase in reality) and 240v phase to ground?   Your stove would not be three phase unless you have 4wire service.  Two hot conductors and neutral is still 400v/240 volt single phase wye service.  That is IEC standard.

[nsdp + 449]

54 minutes ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Rosatom is building the first production energy-positive fast breeder

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Foundation-set-in-place-for-BREST-reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)

This kind makes the energy marginal cost negative?

No you still have costs of auxiliaries  and labor to operate the reactor. and reload the core. 

[Andrei Moutchkine + 828]

1 hour ago, nsdp said:

Is your apt 400v hot wire to hot wire plus neutral (single phase in reality) and 240v phase to ground?   Your stove would not be three phase unless you have 4wire service.  Two hot conductors and neutral is still 400v/240 volt single phase wye service.  That is IEC standard.

Got a 5 wire service

 

The difference between N and PE (blue vs green-yellow) is local, as per TN-C-S earthing setup

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earthing_system#IEC_terminology

In general, they would not ever give you two phases in Europe. It is either one or three. You seem to be describing a split-phase arrangement typical for US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Split-phase_electric_power

If I were to do this, I'd get ~460 volt delta, for which I have no obvious use. 400V wye needs two phases. I could take any 2/3 phases for that, but there is no standard socket for that either. 240 is British, Germany/Austria downgraded to 230 for the time being after Brexit. It is 230 to either N (neutral) or PE (ground), but an RCCD is supposed to trip if I connect N and PE myself.

I am telling you the stupid works stove uses all the phases for ad hoc load balancing. It is supposed to be hardwired with this

https://www.amazon.de/Xavax-Solides-Anschlusskabel-Elektroherd-Elektroherd-Zuleitung/dp/B0026MT4D4?language=en_GB

Edited November 3, 2021 by Andrei Moutchkine

[KeyboardWarrior + 527]

2 hours ago, Andrei Moutchkine said:

Rosatom is building the first production energy-positive fast breeder

https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Foundation-set-in-place-for-BREST-reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)

This kind makes the energy marginal cost negative?

Is it really the first? I find that hard to believe.

In any case, all plutonium breeders are energy positive once the cycle is complete. So positive that if all mined uranium was sent through this cycle, we'd have nuclear power for millions of years at our current consumption.