Texas urges residents to cut power usage as prices surge

NiftyNiblick said:
Just limit procreation to one kid each for particular genetically screened families only.
Everyone else just fucks for recreation.

Population is our problem.

If we didn't fuck our way into oblivion, we could live however we wanted.

The obvious solution to almost everything is the one nobody seems to be discussing.
Click to expand...

This isn't China, ya dumb mutt.
If you think the world is overpopulated, go kill yourself.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No it isn't because it doesn't generate enough energy per unit of mass to make it worthwhile, and it isn't fissionable material.
Click to expand...

You just said it was fissionable material. It's putting out radiation. That's fission. That makes it a fuel.
Worthwhile? A reactor can use this fuel, even though it's lower in energy. It's not as efficient, but who cares? It's free.
 
Into the Night said:
You just said it was fissionable material. It's putting out radiation. That's fission. That makes it a fuel.
Worthwhile? A reactor can use this fuel, even though it's lower in energy. It's not as efficient, but who cares? It's free.
Click to expand...

No, it is not fissionable material. It is depleted.
 
Into the Night said:
Then it's not radioactive.

You can't have it both ways, dude.
Click to expand...

It is radioactive. You don't need fission or fusion for an isotope to be unstable and decay giving off radiation. All long-term unstable isotopes give off either alpha--a helium nucleus (heavier than Fe 56 generally)-- or beta--an electron (lighter than Fe 56)-- particle when they decay. Decay chains will continue until the isotope created becomes stable. You start with one atom, you end with one atom, only the element the atom is changes with the decay process.

Fission requires a neutron source to cause the isotope (atom) to split into two new isotopes (atoms)--unlike radioactive decay where you get a single new isotope-- or fusion where you smash two atoms together to form a single new atom.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It is radioactive. You don't need fission or fusion for an isotope to be unstable and decay giving off radiation. All long-term unstable isotopes give off either alpha--a helium nucleus (heavier than Fe 56 generally)-- or beta--an electron (lighter than Fe 56)-- particle when they decay. Decay chains will continue until the isotope created becomes stable. You start with one atom, you end with one atom, only the element the atom is changes with the decay process.

Fission requires a neutron source to cause the isotope (atom) to split into two new isotopes (atoms)--unlike radioactive decay where you get a single new isotope-- or fusion where you smash two atoms together to form a single new atom.
Click to expand...

Fission does not require a neutron source. Fusion does not require a neutron source either.
The decay chain itself is fission.

It is energy. You can use that energy. Indeed, the recycling process makes use of that energy.
Spent nuclear fuel still has a lot of U238 in it.

Depleted uranium (all U235, and no U238) does not undergo fission and is not radioactive.
Indeed, depleted uranium is used as a counterweight on some passenger jet aircraft. It is also used to add weight to a bullet to give it better piercing ability (as in armor piercing shells), etc. Depleted uranium is useful stuff.
 
Last edited:
QP! said:
I agree with one sentiment though and that is to get government out of ICE vehicles and Oil and Gas.

NO more subsidies. No more bailouts. Stop dictating what people will buy thru those methods that end up making the end product cheaper and let the market dictate.

But since they will not stop subsidizing them they better equally subsidize renewables and throw in a bit more, to help catch up on the all the legacy subsidies and bailouts.


that is as close to a free market as we will get. Equalize the subsidies to all so no one channel has advantage and thus the government is picking winners and losers.

Time to even the playing field FINALLY for EV's and Renewables.
Click to expand...
The problem with subsidizing Big Oil is that on the one hand it keeps the price of fuel lower than it might be, but as we now see the free market in this nation is driving the price up artificially. Capitalism will always be about profits above all. We bragged about being the worlds biggest producer a few years ago, only to see Wall St. demand production cuts to hike prices after getting an ass beating due to the trump virus.

I think the Feds. should set up a national oil program and sell at cost. But that's Socialism according to some that ignore govt. bailouts/subsidies as being exactly the same.
 
Before the summer started some professionals predicted that there was an 11% chance that ERCOT would do rotating power cut offs this year.....so far they have just barely not.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yes, if you go for wind and solar you will pay more for electricity! That's how it works. Historical data shows it clearly.
Click to expand...
Isn't that odd? My area is putting in huge 10+ acre solar farms everywhere. I get a 10% savings on my electric bill because my power is coming from the grid that is fed in part by solar.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Let them. "Renewables" (aka solar and wind) are total fucking losers as energy sources. The US should shift to nuclear with natural gas filling the variable part of the load. Wind and solar should be dumped entirely as the worthless generation systems they are.
Click to expand...
Who is going to come up with the money? No investors will touch it.
 
Althea said:
Isn't that odd? My area is putting in huge 10+ acre solar farms everywhere. I get a 10% savings on my electric bill because my power is coming from the grid that is fed in part by solar.
Click to expand...

Trumpers hate tech because Trump tells them to do so. It's really very simple because all of them are simple minded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top