Spent fuel is a non issue, and time/money is mostly an artificial one
created by the NRC's ALARA policy.  That said, even without ALARA, I
suspect nuclear power would still be more expensive than gas turbine
power.  I won't believe solar is the cheapest form of power generation
until I can buy cheap panels from an unsubsidized factory in the West that
is itself entirely powered by solar.


On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 2:49 PM Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote:

> We can argue about the spent fuel problem until someone actually proves
> that they have a working solution. To date, it's all pie in the sky, and no
> one has come up with an actual working solution.
>
> A perhaps bigger issue is time. It takes the better part of a decade to
> get a nuclear plant built and operating. For that you get 1 or 2, or rarely
> 3 GW of power.
>
> You can get a gas or oil plant going in a couple of years with similar
> power output.
>
> I won't talk about coal because it is too expensive, and there are too
> many pollution issues.
>
> You can get a GW of solar power going in a matter of months for a much
> smaller investment (an order of magnitude less than nuclear), and the
> arguments about space are overblown. As Ken pointed out, you can double,
> and sometimes triple the land use with crops and/or grazing; especially
> where partial shade is a plus. In California, they are starting to put
> arrays over the aquaducts, where the shade reduces evaporation, and the
> space above the water is otherwise useless. Also, in case no one has
> noticed, California now has significant periods with negative cost to
> produce power because the solar is producing more than we consume (so we
> export it at a profit to adjacent states). Texas may be close to the same
> situation. Batteries are coming online, which will fix the "duck curve"
> issue. Finally, after the system is built, you spend zero on the "fuel".
>
> Wind is a pretty good solution. Marginally less espensive than solar, and
> sometimes produces power when the sun isn't shining.
>
>
>
> bp
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 10/27/2025 9:43 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> I think the waste (spent fuel) disposal issue was bigger than people
> remember.  Big NIMBY problem.  Remember Yucca Mountain?
>
>
>
> The other issue is commissioning time and cost.  You can spin up a solar
> farm in like 6 months, with almost no regulatory issues unless you need a
> zoning variance.  Just make a deal with the landowners.  I’ll drive by a
> field and see some pickup trucks and a crew putting in stakes, a month
> later I drive by and there are solar panels, and a month after that it’s
> hooked up to the grid.  After the fact people will whine on Facebook they
> are taking good farmland for solar, but actually that land grew corn to
> make into ethanol for blending with gasoline.  So you can grow corn to fuel
> gasoline cars or grow electricity to fuel EVs.  Different means, same
> result.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On Behalf
> Of *Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Monday, October 27, 2025 11:30 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] ***SPAM*** Re: now we're blowing up boats in the
> Pacific
>
>
>
> Don't forget Chernobyl.
>
> The exclusion zone around Chernobyl is a restricted area in Ukraine and
> Belarus established after the 1986 nuclear disaster, with an initial radius
> of about 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) that was later expanded. Today, it
> covers an area of approximately 1,600 square miles (4,143 square km) in
> Ukraine, with a separate zone on the Belarusian side called the Polesie
> State Radioecological Reserve.
>
>
>
> bp
>
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 10/27/2025 9:14 AM, Robert wrote:
>
> Nuclear,  A handful of acres...  Now who's smoking crack...   Try at least
> 2 miles square with buffer zones and towers and aux facilities...   Diablo
> Canyon, which is a more recent plant, doesn't need towers due to ocean
> water cooling, and it's exclusion area is 2 miles on a side.    Now if you
> want to talk pie in the sky they are saying the new plants, which there are
> none, are going to be 1/2 mile exclusion.   But again, you want to
> live/work within that space?
>
> Solar isn't any worse than Nuk and a whole lot less support facilities and
> no shutting down the land use for the next 50-100 years.   Some solar
> facilities are being raised off the ground by 10 feet to make the areas
> below usable, which is a benefit to the land owner.
>
> Around N. Nevada, the electrical companies are throwing up panels left and
> right.  Getting BLM land isn't that expensive and the power goes right next
> door to the server farms.
>
> Redwood Industries, the massive lithium recycling company is taking the
> battery packs that are 99% ok and fixing the couple bad cells and packaging
> them into lower cost power banks in containers.
>
> My knock on Solar is that the weather is getting worse and the damage to
> the facilities is, in a lot of cases, worked around instead of being
> repaired.  Easier to just throw up more area than repair large scale damage
> for a year because old panels are a pita to fix...
>
> On 10/27/25 7:47 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>
> AIs don't smoke.
>
>
>
> bp
>
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 10/26/2025 5:34 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
> How much meth was smoked before this post?
>
>
>
> You ever see the land lease and neigbor contacts on these?
>
>
>
> Nuclear, a handful of acres
>
>
>
> Same solar 4 to 6000 acres
>
>
>
> Same wind 100s of square miles
>
>
>
> 24x7 vs good times
>
>
>
> Once we bust the NRC and get gen3 reactors online, we will start giving
> salmon their habitat back
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 26, 2025, 12:29 PM Bill Prince <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Petro-dollars are quickly becoming worthless. We've reached the point
> where renewables (mainly solar) are the fastest, cheapest way to get power
> to the grid. That will be the main driver going forward. Just in the first
> half of this year China has put up over 200 GW of solar power. That is
> roughly equivalent to 200 nuclear reactors. They did that in six months,
> and it would have taken decades if it was nuclear.
>
> A barrel of oil is now around $60, and we are going into a glut, which
> will drive the price of oil downward. If the price gets much below $50,
> then all of a sudden all the shale-oil becomes a loser, and will get shut
> down.
>
> It will be interesting how this plays out, but I'm not betting on oil.
>
> bp
>
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 10/25/2025 5:30 PM, Jan-GAMs wrote:
>
> It doesn't work that way.  The petrol-dollar assholes will just get the
> government to make it illegal and force us to use gas.
>
> On 10/24/25 19:46, Steve Jones wrote:
>
> George and Gracie did a skit
>
> "If we had some eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham"
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2025, 12:05 PM Robert <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> IF we actually got functioning Fusion, the greatest benefit would be being
> able to just forget about all these places...  Take away the petrodollar
> and they would blow away in the desert winds...
>
> On 10/24/25 9:28 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> Yemen has a 10 year old civil war, partly a proxy war between Iran and the
> Saudis.  Yemen was formed by the merger of North Yemen and South Yemen, the
> latter was a former British colony.
>
>
>
> The Houthis are technically a “movement” but they control the capital and
> much of the territory and have their own government structure.  The
> internationally recognized and Saudi supported government moved to Adan in
> the south after the Houthi revolution or coup.  It looks to me like the
> split might be roughly the former North Yemen under control of the Houthis
> and the former South Yemen under control of the internationally recognized
> government.  I seem to remember that the Houthis were threatening to take
> control of the whole country when the Saudis intervened.  But the Saudis
> were mainly just bombing stuff.
>
>
>
> The Houthis are Iranian puppets so you could compare them to Hezbollah,
> but maybe more like revolutionaries, they control a good chunk of Yemen.
> Not nice people.
>
>
>
> But Yemen is a mess.  I think I read the British left because of
> widespread terrorism and that was decades ago.  If a giant sinkhole
> swallowed the whole place, we would probably say good riddance.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On Behalf
> Of *Bill Prince
> *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2025 10:08 AM
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific
>
>
>
> Are the Houthis an actual country, or just another Al-Qaeda kind of group?
>
> bp
>
> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>
> On 10/24/2025 7:53 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>
> So are the Houthis justified sinking vessels in the Red Sea from companies
> and countries that support Israel’s war in Gaza?
>
>
>
> *From:* AF <[email protected]> <[email protected]> *On Behalf
> Of *Carl Peterson
> *Sent:* Friday, October 24, 2025 9:40 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific
>
>
>
> The Daily had a really good bit on this yesterday.  Not particularly about
> blowing up boats but about the competing interests in the Trump
> administration re Venezuela.  It's a great 30 min listen.
>
>
>
> Background:  Maduro lost the last election in a landslide (30%/70%) but
> refused to cede power.
>
>
>
> TLDL:
>
> Trump wanted to cut a deal and was working on it but Rubio won out and is
> focused on regime change.
>
>
>
>
> https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/23/podcasts/the-daily/us-venezuela-maduro-boat-attacks.html
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025 at 9:33 PM Steve Jones <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> Heh
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2025, 9:13 PM Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Might be safer to have a Maple Leaf flag.  You could always run the stars
> and bars, at least they would presume you would be armed and would fight.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Mark Radabaugh
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2025 7:41 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific
>
>
>
> So that American flag on the back is going to protect me from the various
> other countries that decide to even up the score?
>
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2025, at 9:10 PM, Chuck McCown <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Stop smuggling and you will be just fine….
>
>
>
> *From:* AF [mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Radabaugh
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 23, 2025 6:57 AM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific
>
>
>
> Someday I would really like to be able to sail around the Caribbean and
> South America without having to worry about being randomly blown out of the
> water for no reason at all.   “Well, the US said it was OK to kill people
> in international waters”.
>
>
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Oct 23, 2025, at 1:31 AM, Jason McKemie <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> It seems very telling that when they blew up a boat and people survived,
> they sent them back to their home country vs prosecuting them. You can't
> introduce that testimony into the public record.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025, 11:44 PM Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Replying to myself, which is perhaps a sign I should be in therapy, but I
> just realized one reason why the Coast Guard is underappreciated or at
> least unknown compared to Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines.  They are part
> of DHS not DOD.
>
>
>
> But now that DOD is calling itself the Department of War, maybe DHS is
> just fine.  Although one is Hegseth and the other is Noem, so flip a coin.
>
>
>
> Coast Guard is also much smaller, has a smaller budget, and a much smaller
> PR budget.  No money to toot their own horn.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Ken Hohhof
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2025 10:50 PM
> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific
>
>
>
> Yeah, but if it’s on the ocean, I’d prefer to see a Hawaii Five 0 style
> chase.  With McGarrett in a speedboat, and at the end he says “book ‘em,
> Danno”.
>
>
>
> Besides, I think the Coasties are an underappreciated branch of the US
> military.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Steve Jones
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2025 8:31 PM
> *To:* AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific
>
>
>
> I prefer to see cartels bombed. When they started moving the fent, they
> chose bombs. A little nose candy here and there, some dope, a little
> crystal, even some heroin was manageable. But these ducks decided to move
> shit that one mistake kills. Fuckbag dealers are putting it it club drugs
> and on vicodins.  Kids don't have a chance to make a mistake.
>
>
>
> Bomb the shit out of them. Sink their boats, cut their life jackets, chum
> the waters, I don't care as long as they die. They don't want to give our
> kids a second chance, their adults deserve as terrible a death as possible.
> Idgaf about human rights, they don't, and I have no interest in the high
> road.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025, 6:45 PM Dev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Turns out drug dealers sometimes get shot, who knew? Maybe they were
> delivering critical supplies to orphanages, because speedboats with three
> engines mean urgent care is being delivered expeditiously?
>
>
>
> On Oct 22, 2025, at 3:03 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> Article on the latest generation of US Coast Guard “Over The Horizon”
> boats.
>
>
> https://www.workboat.com/shipbuilding/test-driving-the-coast-guard-s-new-over-the-horizon-cutter-boat
>
>
>
> Generally deployed from a ramp on the back of a larger cutter along with
> helicopters.  These things vaguely remind me of the WWII PT boats.
>
>
>
> I would not want to try and outrun the Coast Guard.
>
>
>
> *From:* AF <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *Adam Moffett
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2025 4:24 PM
> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific
>
>
>
> Yes, and that's the primary argument against this practice.  If we have
> solid intel that they're carrying drugs, and we know where they are, then
> as soon as they enter our territorial waters we can board the boat and
> arrest them.  The Coast Guard doesn't need a warrant or even a specific
> reason to board a boat.  Some of those boats are faster than Cutters, but I
> don't have solid info on how often they actually escape when they're
> already being tracked.  It's hard to imagine they really get away often
> because the Coast Guard also has helicopters, and they're allowed to
> continue a pursuit into international waters (and onto land) as long as the
> pursuit started in US waters.
>
>
>
> Regardless of how often they really get away, it's not normal to blow up
> someone's boat as a law enforcement action.  We also don't execute drug
> traffickers, and even when the state executes someone there's a trial
> first.
>
>
>
> but.....
>
>    1. post-911 we treat foreign terrorist organizations as enemy
>    combatants
>
>
>    1. the executive branch gets to decide who counts as an FTO.  The sec
>    of state, sec of treasury, and attorney general all have to agree, but they
>    also all have the same boss.
>
>
>    1. Nobody can really stop the executive branch from declaring an FTO.
>
>
>    1. Congress could pass a bill to override someone's listing as an FTO,
>       but to date they've never done it.
>
>
>    1. The courts could overturn an FTO listing, but for a lot of reasons
>       it's almost impossible.
>
>
>
>
>
> So effectively the President and/or their cabinet has a completely legal
> pathway to authorize military force against just about anyone, and there's
> very little anyone can do about it.  It's not that I have sympathy for drug
> smugglers, it's that all we can do is take someone's word for it that it
> was a drug smuggler.  If anyone is totally comfortable with that then I'm
> curious what your rationale is.
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* AF <[email protected]> on behalf of Ken Hohhof <
> [email protected]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 22, 2025 3:00 PM
> *To:* 'AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group' <[email protected]>
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] now we're blowing up boats in the Pacific
>
>
>
> *https://x.com/SecWar/status/1981049943306752361
> <https://x.com/SecWar/status/1981049943306752361>*
>
>
>
> I thought the Coast Guard was able to intercept boats and board them,
> arrest people and confiscate cargo.  I seem to remember they specifically
> acquired high speed boats that were a match for anything a drug runner
> might have.
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Carl Peterson
>
> *PORT NETWORKS*
>
> 401 E Pratt St, Ste 2553
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E+Pratt+St,+Ste+2553+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++Baltimore,+MD+21202?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> Baltimore, MD 21202
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/401+E+Pratt+St,+Ste+2553+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++Baltimore,+MD+21202?entry=gmail&source=g>
>
> (410) 637-3707
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
-- 
AF mailing list
[email protected]
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com

Reply via email to