Similar Posts

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

55 Comments

  1. Rod,

    thanks for sharing this.

    I struggle a bit with the water pool the reactor vessel is swimming within. Rod, do you have some information about the insulation of the hot vessel and the pool?

    Regards,

    Martin

    1. @Martin

      It is similar to a thermos bottle. From http://www.nuscalepower.com/reactormodules.aspx

      The containment vessel pressure is maintained at a vacuum under normal operating conditions, providing for reduced moisture that could contribute to component corrosion and impact the reliability of instrumentation and other systems within the containment vessel. The vacuum essentially eliminates convection heat transfer removing the need for “direct-contact” reactor pressure vessel insulation. The vacuum also enhances steam condensation rates that would occur during an accident with ECCS actuation and limits the available oxygen, which is beneficial for severe accident combustible gas control.

  2. Very encouraging. UAMPS seems like a forward thinking organization.

    I’m still a bit unclear about the containment vessel. Would this be built at the factory along with the reactor core and then shipped to the site or would it be built on site? I imagine that it would be quite large and heavy, so it’s not clear to me whether it can be prefabricated and shipped. But obviously if it could be built in the factory, that would be preferable as it reduces what must be built at the installation site.

  3. Jeffery, some additional info is here: http://www.nuscalepower.com/overviewofnuscalestechnology.aspx
    Almost all components will be factory built modules. Exceptions will be site buildings and probably the two large water pools (reactor pool and used fuel pool). The containment “thermos bottle” is 80’X15′ and it will contain the reactor module, which is 65’X9′. Most probably will be site assembled because the height of these modules will require transport on their side. This would require a lot of “shipping” engineering just for support if shipped pre-assembled. My understanding from past reading is that same thing applies to the reactor core (fuel assemblies); the reactor module is shipped, on its side, without the core.
    When refuel is needed, the whole thermos bottle assembly is moved into the used fuel pool, disassembled, and refueled.

  4. I believe 44 acres for 587 MWe also would set a record low footprint for any energy source, beating current reactors by about an order of magnitude.

    1. That may just be the buildings.  The actual buildings for conventional NPPs don’t take up very much room either.

    2. Going back to the David MacKay video of several Atomic Insights posts ago, he estimated the nuclear power density for Sizewell B at 1000 watts per square meter. A 587 MW power plant in 44 acres, by my figures, would be 3300 watts/square meter. Remember he put biofuels at 0.5 W/m2, wind power at 2.5 W/m2 and solar PV parks at 5.0 W/m2.

      This isn’t just an academic exercise. Many renewable sources are just too energy diffuse to be useful, particularly if you include energy storage, which will need to be developed to make the renewables anything close to 24/7 power.

      http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/

      1. @Pete51:
        Thanks for the BNC link. I think it bears repeating that Morgan and Lang assumed pumped hydro to have the greatest (stored) energy on energy invested of all available alternatives, and geographical opportunities for pumped hydro are limited. More recently there has been proposed a 1.2 GW capacity 60 GWh(!) CAES system near Delta, Utah, projected to cost $1.5 billion. This is about one-tenth the cost per GWh as the pumped-hydro example Peter Lang scoped out using two existing reservoirs.

        I don’t know how to convert construction dollars into construction kilowatts to get EROEI from ERO$I. Nor am I saying the Delta CAES is necessarily a game-changer as it relies upon an inland salt-dome that might not be widely replicable.

        Still, 60 GWh is a *lot* of energy. The Delta CAES is to be used to buffer a $4 billion 2.1 GW wind farm to be sited near Chugwater, Wyoming, connected by a $2.6 billion transmission line. Assuming a 42% Chugwater wind CF, that’s 880 MW average. The Delta CAES could store that for 2.8 days. I don’t know for how long the wind doesn’t blow in southern Wyoming (but I-80 folklore has that never happens). Also, large-scale CAES is about 70% efficient, so for sake of argument I’ll derate the 2.1 GW by 15% for (2.1 * .42 * .85 = 750 MW average, stored for about 3 days and at a cost of only $(4+2.6+1.5)billion/0.75 GW = $10.8/watt, against the foak Vogtle plants which at this point are looking like 7 or 8 $/watt (if we’re lucky).

        Of course, I don’t really expect NOAK AP-1000 to cost anywhere near that, maybe $5 – $5.50/watt. But this is what we’re facing today: wind is very competitive for those who wish to subsidise it to compete.

        Like California for instance, the Chugwater/Delta’s ultimate destination. In an earlier comment I estimated those 60GW hours could balance the entire states daily load fluctuation this time of year, assuming the actual generation came 100% from constant-rate baseload. And California has a fair amount of hydro, so things are actually better than this. (The CAES plant would also need about 6 GW generation capacity rather than 1.2, but that just turbines — its storage volume would be the same.)

        Whether there are enough suitably-located massive salt domes to balance our entire national grid if powered by unreliables+biomass is another question. I’d guess most likely not., and no where near. But that’s for geologists to ascertain. I’d also guess that, used judiciously, those domes that might be available could make a substantial contribution to balancing baseload nuclear.

        This thing is possible, and needn’t demand energy impoverishment plus an arm and a leg.

        1. @ Ed Leaver
          You have obviously spent some time looking at the economics of this Chugwater project. By looking at the EIA information for a few of the newer wind farms in southeastern Wyoming, a 42% capacity factor appears to be reasonable. One thing that also needs to be taken into consideration is the distance between southeastern Wyoming and California. They may send out 750 MW from the plant, but California isn’t going to get 750 MW at its end. Ohmic heating of the transmission lines is going to cause losses. Those losses will depend on the voltage and whether it is DC or AC. This isn’t going to be a superconducting line is it?

          This will be an interesting project to watch, but I too suspect the number of suitable salt domes will be limited. It probably isn’t going to be a big game-changer on the scale necessary to really make a dent in the national power generation numbers.

          1. Yes, but if it works well and affordably, it will cause the wind and solar advocates to crow all the louder, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the world lacks the necessary geology and topography.

            It will become another fantastic (in the root-word fantasy sense) distraction from the fact that in general, wind and solar are a waste of time and money if one wants to reduce CO2 emissions.

        2. Let’s also remember that CAES requires burning natural gas to re-heat the expanded air. Thus it is not entirely storage, and not fossil-free.

          1. Good to keep in mind, but the proposed Delta CAES system is so large as to be essentially adiabatic. Natural gas use should be minimal, but we’ll see if and when it ever becomes operational.

      2. Remember, most of modern nuclear plant sites aren’t the plant proper, they’re parking lots, security buffer zones, green belts, etc.  Of a square mile that might constitute a plant site, the plant itself is very little of it.

      3. “Wasted energy is by far the largest product of nuclear plants.”

        Not sure what you’re getting at there. Are you talking about the (roughly 2/3) “waste heat” due to the thermodynamic efficiency?

      4. @JohnGalt-
        I accurately reported what MacKay said in the TED talk video. If you listen, you will here MacKay say the solar PV park energy density is the power output per land area, not per area of panel. The panels are angled, and there are gaps between the panels.
        http://withouthotair.blogspot.com/2013/06/david-mackays-map-of-world-update.html

        Even in sunny locations, the energy density is around 10 W/m^2. Still a long way from the 1000 W/m^2 for nuclear.

        If anything, MacKay is too kind to renewables, because he assumes the power is constantly delivered on an average basis. In reality, solar and wind are intermittent and often unpredictable. Power grid operators always need to balance generation with the demand at any given time, which varies up and down during the day. People have this nasty habit of always wanting to use electricity, even during calm nights when both wind and solar are useless.

        1. “People have this nasty habit of always wanting to use electricity, even during calm nights when both wind and solar are useless.”

          And the pro-nuke crowd seems to have a nasty habit of ignoring energy applications where wind or solar IS a sensible solution to a community’s need, such as combined wind/hydro.

        2. POA: “energy applications where wind or solar IS a sensible solution to a community’s need, such as combined wind/hydro.”

          And in the USA, I’m aware of exactly one area where an outsider can examine the effect of a combined wind/hydro situation, without the raw data being hidden behind a shield of “proprietary information” or aggregated into daily or larger chunks that mask the inherent variability of wind power. Check out the BPA wind integration site: http://transmission.bpa.gov/Business/Operations/Wind/baltwg3.aspx

          A one week rolling chart of near-realtime data in 5 minute increments. Watch hydro ramp up & down to backup the wind output

          Furthermore, anyone can download and analyze historical data going back years. 2 weeks ago, I did just that for 10/1/13 – 9/30/14. The average output of BPA’s 4,515MW installed wind capacity was 1,253MW (28% cf). Sound cool, until you calculate the Std Deviation: 1,284MW. so the Avg +/- 1SD swings from less than zero to 56% cf. The data plot looks like a seismograph pen trace!

          Yes, it’s “power”. Yes, it doesn’t use any fuel. No, it’s neither reliable, steady or dispatchable. Wind advocates say that the power is inexpensive, and that utilities are buying it. Yes, because they have to, due to state RPS/RES mandates. And how much would you pay for a car that only delivered 30-40% of the expected horsepower, and then only when it wanted to, no when you needed it?

        3. “We had a discussion just three weeks ago about El Heirro’s wind/hydro/diesel….”

          Yes, and yet we still see comments such as…

          “People have this nasty habit of always wanting to use electricity, even during calm nights when both wind and solar are useless.”

          My point is that some here cannot escape this “our way or the highway” mindset, that completely refuses to see alternatives such as wind or solar in a positive light, even when certain applications merit positive comment. Even UAMPS recognizes the wisdom of utilizing ALL the alternatives to fossil fuel generated energy. In fact, I posted earlier, on this thread, about their sensible strategy, but apparently the axman robot found fault with my musings.

          Frankly, in my opinion, the incessant negativity here about any and all energy technologies other than nuclear is a losing strategy for you guys. And really, it gets kinda old. Surely you can market your favored technology without crapping on everybody else’s? I know some very well intentioned people in the wind energy industry that do not deserve a constant litany of derision. They have great hopes in the ability of wind energy to evolve into an important technological aspect of our need to rid ourselves of fossil fuel reliance. Surely you cannot envision a 100% nuclear power grid, particularly when there are very real energy niches that wind or solar can fit within. We should be lauding all technologies that show promise of a cleaner, and dependable, energy future. And yes, wind power can be dependable if applied where non-stop generation is not a neccessity.

        4. @poa-
          There are many people who support solar and wind power who desperately want to shut down all nuclear power plants everywhere. Many of those people honestly believe the intermittent renewables can do it all. It is about time someone stands up to tell the truth about the way power grids actually work.

          Your claim about pro-nuclear people having a “my way or the highway” mindset is a strawman argument. Yes, there are places where wind and solar can be used to supplement the grid. The sunny southwest of Arizona and New Mexico can provide some solar power. Same goes for the plains states and the wind farms. I don’t expect the island of Heirro to install a Small Modular Reactor to provide the power needs. But neither do I think wind and solar can do it all in the United States, which many, many people in the environmental movement think can be done.
          http://theenergycollective.com/ed-dodge/301031/critique-100-renewable-energy-new-york-plan

        5. “But neither do I think wind and solar can do it all in the United States, which many, many people in the environmental movement think can be done”

          Nor do I believe it to be the case. But neither have I heard a wind or solar energy advocate make that claim. I have seen the argument offered here that ALL wind energy projects are doomed to failure. Not only do I believe that is not the case, I happen to think that, like all technologies, its utility will evolve as we learn the lessons taught by its application. I feel the same about NE, and SMRs, despite my poor grasp of the technology, excite me. I like the idea of small grids serving rural communities, to a degree of self sufficiency. Must be the hippie in me.

          1. @poa

            But neither have I heard a wind or solar energy advocate make that claim.

            Perhaps you haven’t been listening very well. Have you read the often touted “Carbon Free; Nuclear Free” by Arjun Makhijani or Mark Z Jacobson’ Wind, Water, Solar plans?

        6. “But neither have I heard a wind or solar energy advocate make that claim.

          You could have clicked on the link I provided and read about the ideas of Mark Z. Jacobson. And that is only one example. There are many more, but I doubt you would click on any of those links either.

        7. “There are many more, but I doubt you would click on any of those links either”

          Really? Is this the point where the debate becomes hostile?? Yeah, that’s a winning strategy, Pete. Alienate and irritate. That’ll get your point across, by golly.

          And what is your point? That nuclear energy is the only true alternative? Hmmmmm, seems I’ve read that alot here. So, if a wind advocate makes the same claim, they’re just spouting non-sense, while your claim is the gospel?

          What gives here? Have I committed Atomic Insights sacrilege, daring to opine that wind and solar have their places in certain power grids? Or do you guys have to point to an argument I haven’t offered in order to counter the one that I have?

          1. @poa

            Wind and solar have a place. It’s just not a very big one.

            My formative years were spent in Florida, a state that is incapable of hosting a wind and pumped storage facility of any kind since there are essentially no elevated places where water can be pumped up so it can later fall. I’ve lived most of the rest of my life in places often referred to as “lowlands” where the same statement is true. Even my current home in the foothills of Virginia long ago expanded to a size that was too large to supply with the available water power. There is a pumped storage facility that involves two very large lakes (20,000 acres and 5,000 acres) to produce about 600 MWe for a couple of days.

        8. “Perhaps you haven’t been listening very well”

          Actually, I listen quite well. To those who are actually laboring to make wind energy viable. In real time, face to face. Neighbors. Acquaintances. Never have I heard one claim that wind or solar is capable, now or in the distant future, of providing all our energy needs.

          Sure, you can find websites with any amount of mouthpieces saying any selection of nonsense you choose to seek. Particularly if you seek out the fringe, or those profiting by their narrative.

          But since coming here to this website, and having my interest perked, I have talked to locals involved in the actual business of wind power generation, from laborers to site managers, to production managers. And not one of them has expressed the opinion that wind is capable of supplying all our energy needs.

          So, if we are going to bring up strawmen…..uh…..

          1. @poa

            There is value in listening and engaging with people on the ground in the wind and solar industry. However, their pride in their work and their continued motivation is similar to that of soldiers or sailors engaged in conflicts that they do not fully understand. They know their jobs, they have been well trained, and they are generally quite patriotic and proud of what they do. That does not mean that the people who have sent them into that conflict, designed their weapons systems, or created the situations that led to conflict in the first place were as admirable.

            My criticism of wind and solar as prescriptions for current and future energy systems is not aimed at the good people who manufacture turbine blades, drive the trucks to the installation site, or wire up the generators. It is aimed at the “gurus” like Amory Lovins, Mark Z. Jacobson, and Arjun Makhijani that provide the “scientific” justifications to the businessmen who want to make money from the products and politicians that they purchase to create the favorable “market” conditions that make the products profitable.

        9. Have I committed Atomic Insights sacrilege, daring to opine that wind and solar have their places in certain power grids?

          If you did a better job of telling us what that place might be, and the evidence which supports your assertion, it would probably be taken a lot better.

          There’s a lot of Green handwaving out there.  People are getting sick of dealing with assertions that have proven to be half-truths or outright falsehoods.

        10. “If you did a better job of telling us what that place might be, and the evidence which supports your assertion, it would probably be taken a lot better”

          EP……

          Please bear in mind that this is not my calling, profession, or primary interest. I’m new at this, and learning as I go. So, with limited time, I research assertions read here and elsewhere. When I have found examples of wind systems that are seemingly viable, I have shared that info here with links, and offered them for debate. And when our local newspaper ran an article about our local wind farms not performing to expectation, causing economic burden to our local infrastructure through lost tax revenue, I shared that as well.

          I am not the enemy. I am simply a busy finish carpenter, enjoying a new interest, and trying to make sense of an issue I have very little knowledge about. If you expect those such as myself to come here and immediately accept your side of the issue as the gospel truth, than I question your own ability to question both sides of an issue, which doesn’t exactly speak well for your credibility. I’m trying, man. Learning. Cut me some slack, will ya?

        11. @poa : Don’t forget that the market currently is viable because both of various tax rebates, including the PTC and also the mandates for renewable power that make utilities very willing to buy the production through a fixed PPA in order to help them meet that target.
          I don’t say that incentive are necessarily a bad thing, but it should be so that turbine have a lifespan long enough where the part where they run without subsidies at cheap price compensates them.

          The place where turbines make most sense is Brazil. First because there’s a lot of hydropower so the integration is much easier, and second because there seem to be a lot of very stable wind which gives them a better load ratio than most anywhere else.

          But except there, they at most seem to more or less break even, only as long as they stay a small part of the mix, therefore not really solving any real problem. In Denmark, only massive exports to surrounding countries allow wind to have a significant part in the mix. Spain, not being able to export so much, had to compel all wind producer to accept a centralized control of their production that constrains them most of the time to produce slightly less than they could, so that the variations are less strong. But they still complain strongly that the limited connexion to France means they have to throw away power quite frequently (which is *not* the fault of French government, but the opposition of local Basque people).

        12. @poa

          “Sure, you can find websites with any amount of mouthpieces saying any selection of nonsense you choose to seek. Particularly if you seek out the fringe, or those profiting by their narrative.”

          Then you haven’t been paying attention. The de facto national and state policy is that we can get all of our energy needs from wind and solar. Why else are there state mandates for “renewable” energy which do not include nuclear nor hydro?

          The states and the nation have a policy to reduce CO2 emissions. This cannot be done while we are burning fossil fuels. The *only* technologies that are receiving any meaninful support are wind and solar and they **cannot** do the job. In the real world, they don’t even reduce CO2 emissions.

          Every “green” NGO has, as its policy, that fossil fuels should be completely replaced with wind and solar and all nuclear shut down.

          How does all of this not add up to a national and state policy, and certainly a vast advocacy for the concept of wind and solar supplying all of our energy.

          Unless they’re all lying about intending to reduce/eliminate fossil fuels?

          So, yes, if you have not noticed this vast national trend, constantly reinforced by the mass media in every story that touches on the topic of energy, then you have not been paying any attention at all.

          To believe that only the fringe believe or publicly advocate that we put all of our eggs in the unworkable “renewables” basket is disingenuous at best and an attempt to acquit the liars in a misleading way at worst.

        13. @JohnGalt: “Cars deliver very little of “expected” horsepower much of the time. We cannot step on the gas whenever we want to, but only when the lights are green, roads are clear, and speed limits are high. Are you against cars because their actual “average” capacity factors are much closer to zero than to 100%?”

          Yes, cars are often not run at 100% or design horsepower, unless they are racing vehicles, but you obviously do not understand dispatchability. In your example, you cited situations where the driver (aka the utility) makes the decision about whether to go or stop and how fast. For a utility with a contract to buy power from a wind farm, it cannot even say “stop, I will not take your electricity”, unless it is for a safety reason.

          You also do not understand reliability. One aspect of a reliable car is that whatever speed the driver is going, he/she can expect that the car will continue to do so until commanded otherwise. The utility cannot make that statement about wind farm output, other than to look at the weather or perhaps get a message from the wind farm saying, “Sorry, but we cannot provide the power we promised in the day-ahead bidding. My bad.”

        14. @JohnGalt

          Cars deliver very little of “expected” horsepower much of the time. We cannot step on the gas whenever we want to, but only when the lights are green, roads are clear, and speed limits are high. Are you against cars because their actual “average” capacity factors are much closer to zero than to 100%?

          My car delivers exactly as much of its rated capacity as I ask (expect) it to; nothing more, nothing less. If that was not true, I would be suing the manufacturer in the same way as the Toyota drivers that experienced sudden acceleration or the GM drivers that experienced sudden stalls did. With the help of mechanics and gas stations, I can keep that car in reliable operating condition and maintain my travel schedule with few, if any, unscheduled periods when the car is not available to move me and as much “stuff” as I can put in the car without overload.

          I am fortunate enough to be in a position where I would quickly replace an unreliable automobile that left me stranded.

          I don’t criticize wind and solar because of their poor average capacity factor. I criticize them for their fundamentally unreliable nature. Hence the term “unreliables.”

        15. @JohnGalt: “The utility should not be thought of as the driver. Things turn on and off. Handle it.”

          Which is exactly the point. Wind and to a lesser extent solar PV has to be backed up by something that is controllable by the utility. There always has to be “extra” power available, in case a generator goes offline, a transmission line goes down or some large load is started, but with wind, the utility has to run have additional power reserved for “wind-following”. In the BPA, hydroelectric does this, with a few quick-starting open cycle gas turbines. In other locations, it’s OCGTs or other generator types.

          Has the wind power allowed the utility to decommission another generator? No, because wind cannot be relied upon to supply XX amount of power at a given point in time, except as maybe forecasted a day ahead based on weather forecasting and historical numbers. Even then, wind is not reliable. There were several times in 2012 that wind generated almost nothing, but the anemometer data said that the wind was blowing. Another commenter on a different blog immediately accused the BPA of curtailment. When I asked BPA about what happened, the answer was simple: the turbine operators has feathered the blades due to icing conditions.

      5. Ivanpah is 377 MW on 3500 acres. At its stated 31% capacity factor, that’s 8 W/m^2. Non-desert locations won’t do that well.

        1. And Ivanpah has capital costs of at least $22 million per megawatt when adjusted for capacity factor, and burns natural gas. It’s a dancing bear. It may dance, but it does not dance well.

        2. 377 MW on 3500 acres. At its stated 31% capacity factor – do you even realize what that means?

          It doesn’t really “work.”

  5. If they got one of these started and began to produce modular plants, they will begin to see ways to improve the modules and changes will begin to occur. Maybe, by the time they got to the 7th or 8th module, and have found success, they’d be ready for a completely different type. Could one of the modules be a molten salt reactor?

    I wonder how the environmentalists will react to huge pumped hydro projects. Some dams have been removed to appease environmentalists.

  6. Is there an echo in here someplace about SMRs?
    “It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.”
    Niccolò Machiavelli (May 3 1469 – June 21 1527)

      1. Rick, I got it second hand from a friend. I then found it on-line by google, wikipedia quotes for Machiavelli. Didn’t look to see if from one of his particular works. I just thought it ironic, that almost 500 years later, it still applies to the discussion of new nuke technology. But also for a lot of other new “stuff”, it’s still painfully true. The message doesn’t seem to be lost by groups who understand how to exploit the “incredulity of men.”

      2. It’s from “The Prince”. Chapter VI, “Concerning New Principalities Which Are Acquired By One’s Own Arms And Ability”.

        Actually I checked because I wanted to make sure if it was a real quote, so many quotes found on the Internet are in fact invented.

          1. Most quotations on the Internet are falsely attributed.”
            – Abraham Lincoln

            That’s perfect.

            Gmax, is that your own composition, or did you plagarize it from George Washington’s early writings?

  7. Perhaps NuScale should offer to rebate to the first purchaser a portion of their purchase price to be charged to the second, third, … purchaser. Thus, the first buyer isn’t stuck with paying for all the lessons too.

  8. Its a shame our real future is argued and token seriously by the likes of JohnGalt and POA. What a social media disaster. Train wreak really. The populist media complex was always so much more a threat to our future than the Military–industrial complex. Eisenhower got it so so wrong there. Epically so.

    1. @John Tucker

      I strongly disagree. I’ve been inside the MIC and believe Eisenhower was prescient and speaking from direct experience as a man at the very top with lots of “advisors” pressuring him to give ever more wealth and power to the people in the killing enterprise. As a true, experienced warrior, Eisenhower understood that was was never something to be encouraged. He would have hated the idea of the “long war” that make contractors drool with anticipation of continuing flow of money. I experienced that greedy reaction first hand in DC as a requirements officer.

      There is nothing wrong with taking people like POA and JohnGalt seriously. They have a right to engage in the discussion and we have a right to provide rebuttals. That is part of the way a free society full of independent minds should function.

      1. I like Eisenhower.

        His comment has a popular interpretation. I think in some ways, taking his comment at that popular face value its kinda always been that way. Perhaps more associated with a “hereditary banking complex” in previous instances. Big ideas cost big bucks.

        But then I think you are speaking from his experience on the military side of the equation. There again though that also changed. Its not so much about real “war” now even with the military.

        It needs a lot of thought. The “social media/media PR complex” and the difficulty for the individual to assess information and sources, self correct, and build a knowledge base versus the relative ease of generalizing and stereotyping has me a lot more worried than anything these days.

        Thats your choice to engage them technically of course. It just seems their arguments are perpetually biased and substandard and many of you high end types waste too much time banging your heads against those political rocks. It also always seems to go back to the same place. You think they have grown and perhaps changed their minds then we get another baseless, one liner, derogatory remark about the technology. I guess it could be like addiction and relapse though.

        1. “It needs a lot of thought. The “social media/media PR complex” and the difficulty for the individual to assess information and sources, self correct, and build a knowledge base versus the relative ease of generalizing and stereotyping has me a lot more worried than anything these days”

          I’ve admitted to being wrong on this website before. I’ve also apologized on a couple of different occasions for engaging in the kind of abrasive crap you offer consistently to anyone that doesn’t cowtow to your worldview.

          Can you say the same? Where is YOUR ability to self assess? I’ve seen nothing from you that suggests a paragraph, such as you offer above, is anything other than the braying of a self obsessed hypocritical jackass. You are the model of what you seek to criticize.

          1. Self depreciation, although popular now, usually isn’t really necessary or particularity good or valid argument style.

            Self correction is a continuous process. We are all usually wrong about everything when it comes to details. So.

    2. Well, Tucker, your obnoxious and adversarial horseshit doesn’t bode well for the debate, either. Shove it.

Comments are closed.