On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:41:53 -0000 (UTC), Rich wrote:

> And I rather expect the current AI marketer driven hype cycle to crash
> down just like all the other marketer driven AI hype cycles of the past
> crashed down. At which point, what small usefulness the current AI's do
> have that the marketer's have been hyping will finally come out.

The trouble with being an antiquated geezer is you've seen too many cycles
of over-hyped dreams collapsing. Like the broken promises of politicians,
the 'peace dividend' that never came, and so forth, it makes one cynical.

On 11/4/24 2:57 PM, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On 2024-11-04, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 04/11/2024 18:20, John Ames wrote:
>>
>>> I've long held that necessity will ultimately force a serious rethink of
>>> programming practices w.r.t. resource-efficiency once Moore's Law runs
>>> afoul of pesky real-world physics principles, i.e. "eighteen inches is a
>>> nanosecond" vs. "you can't cram an arbitrary amount of stuff into a
>>> finite space without creating a black hole." Gonna be real interesting
>>> when we finally hit the wall.
>
> Horrors - we might have to start programming efficiently again.

No ! NO !!! =:-<>

Only we 'older people' learned to make due, sculpt
ASM, for chips with teenie-weenie RAM/ROM. The
follow-ons think only in mega/giga/terabytes and
NEVER in terms of optimizing code. Hand them a PIC-12f
series chip and they'd ask how to start Win-12 on it.

There was a guy at the office who was always claiming
he needed a new PC (mostly because he always left
like 20 windows from last week opened) and I was VERY
tempted to hand him one of those 8-pin jobbies with
tweezers and say "There's your new computer !" :-)

How about "We want a semi-intelligent human-presence
aware unit for controlling room lighting - by the
end of the month. Why, you have a whole 1024 bytes
of flash to write the pgm in and 64 bytes of RAM
should be plenty !"

>> It may be that computing as we understand it is simply a mature
>> technology, and there isn't much more to actually do.
>
> I've been seeing a lot of immature behaviour lately.

'Computing' may have a few tricks left. Neural/quantum
and a few other things. Even getting thousands of
NVidia's coordinated on the same question must be
interesting.

But as for 'conventional computing', yea, it's down
about as good as it'll ever be. All you can do add is
more/faster hardware - until there ain't no more.

rbowman wrote this post while blinking in Morse code:

> On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 18:59:07 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>
>> On 4 Nov 2024 07:03:56 GMT, rbowman wrote:
>>
>>> The Beelink came with Windows 11 Pro. I was a little skeptical of the
>>> license but Win11 didn't last long enough to bother. I've done dual
>>> boots in the past but lately I go scorched earth if there's anything on
>>> the drive.
>>
>> The trouble with that is, you are still paying the Microsoft tax.
>
> At $350 the tax must be bargained down. That's why I said I didn't have
> complete confidence in the 11 Pro it came with, not that a company in
> Shenzhen would cut corners.
>
> Maybe it's entirely legit. The Swift 3 was $679 with very similar hardware
> including the display, keyboard, laptop configuration.
>
> amazon.com/dp/B0D8NS7KSH/
>
> When you get down to $165 that claims to come with Windows 11 Pro you've
> got to wonder what exactly the 'tax' is. Not the greatest processor and I
> doubt the other components are top shelf, but there still has to be some
> cost involved for the physical components and assembly.

I thought it well-known that Microsoft sells Windows dirt-cheap to OEMs.

--
Cosmotronic Software Unlimited Inc. does not warrant that the
functions contained in the program will meet your requirements or that
the operation of the program will be uninterrupted or error-free.
However, Cosmotronic Software Unlimited Inc. warrants the
diskette(s) on which the program is furnished to be of black color and
square shape under normal use for a period of ninety (90) days from the
date of purchase.
NOTE: IN NO EVENT WILL COSMOTRONIC SOFTWARE UNLIMITED OR ITS
DISTRIBUTORS AND THEIR DEALERS BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
ANY LOST PROFIT, LOST SAVINGS, LOST PATIENCE OR OTHER INCIDENTAL OR
CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES.
-- Horstmann Software Design, the "ChiWriter" user manual

On 5 Nov 2024 00:25:23 GMT
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> That giant sucking sound is the lights going out... Meta's plan to
> acquire a nuke ran into a problem. There was a program to create bee
> friendly environments around the disused nuclear plants. It happens
> the one Meta had their eye own is populated by a rare sort of
> honeybee.

Couldn'tve happened to a nicer sociopath!

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 19:30:22 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> On 11/4/24 1:10 PM, rbowman wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 02:35:50 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> Know what you mean ... I've got tons of parts - for those "someday"
> projects :-)
>
> The executors of my estate are NOT gonna be happy.
> Hell, even have a ZX-81 in The Heap somewhere :-)

Whoever cleans up after me would be best served with a 5 gallon can of
gasoline and a match. There are several books about 'Swedish death
cleaning'. Supposedly the Swedes have a word for getting rid of all your
junk before dying.

>> Right now I have a 4 wheel chassis with a primitive IR keypad
>> controller. The long range plan is to incorporate the PWM ability of
>> the L298Ns and go to the nfr240l01 for two way communication. The
>> problem is the chassis has limitations.
>
> PWM ... why not steppers ?

Path of least resistance. There are a lot of chassis available in the $20
range. They're a couple of pieces of plexiglas, standoffs, encoders and
other hardware. Most include TT gearbox motors.

https://www.adafruit.com/product/3777

I'd previously built a 3 wheel chassis with converted R/C servos but these
seemed a little more, um, finished looking. A problem with 4WD is the
motors don't have quite enough torque to skid steer for tight turns. You
need to reverse the drive on one side rather than just bulling around.

> Build a better chassis ? Of course that requires the right tools,
> which means off to the hardware store, which means bringing back a
> bunch of other stuff you didn't know you needed and ........

I'm pretty sure I read it about 30 years ago but I'm reading Neal
Stephenson's 'Zodiac'. The protagonist goes to a hardware store to find
some way to block the ports in a chemical plants underwater diffuser.

He notes that young clerks try to be helpful while the older ones let you
wander around without bothering you knowing that almost nothing that's
bought in a hardware store is put to its intended use. I had to laugh
having been there too many times over the years.

> I come across robotics sites selling more-or-less finished chassis.
> Just bolt yer stuff on.

Yup.

> Radio comms, esp with limited units like Ards, can be annoying. They
> DO make an Uno with built-in wifi now - so depending on your coverage
> you might be able to run it straight up from a laptop. There are
> various 900 MHz bi-di modules too.
>
> https://store.arduino.cc/products/arduino-uno-wifi-rev2

The R4? I've been working with the Pico W but the Arduino format is
attractive. I like the USB C rather than Micro USB. My eyes aren't what
they were 50 years ago. That's the mice thing about the original Uno --
you can't confuse USB B with anything as you search through the cable
collection.

> The Pico does interest me. Basically a hopped-up microcontroller and
> you can get wi-fi too. Looks easier than starting with a raw PIC or
> '51 and building up from there.

As everyone moves to Arm M cores it's a little less like the wild west. I
never worked with the PICs, only the AVRs. Back then I was working with
assembly and the AVRs were more like the Intel devices I was familiar
with.

> Just glad a LOT of people are still into this sort of stuff - don't
> think a smartphone is the end-all of tech. The spirit of Radio Shack
> lives on. :-)

When they built the new library they incorporated a maker space rather
than a few things stuffed into a meeting room. I don't think it's a formal
class but someone is available Saturdays to help with Arduino projects.

On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:08:02 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

> Only we 'older people' learned to make due, sculpt ASM, for chips
> with teenie-weenie RAM/ROM. The follow-ons think only in
> mega/giga/terabytes and NEVER in terms of optimizing code. Hand them
> a PIC-12f series chip and they'd ask how to start Win-12 on it.

When I interviewed for my current job about 25 years ago one of the
interview questions started with 'Assume you have unlimited memory...' I
thought to myself that I was entering a different world.

On 5 Nov 2024 20:07:07 GMT
rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> > Just glad a LOT of people are still into this sort of stuff - don't
> > think a smartphone is the end-all of tech. The spirit of Radio
> > Shack lives on. :-)
>
> When they built the new library they incorporated a maker space
> rather than a few things stuffed into a meeting room. I don't think
> it's a formal class but someone is available Saturdays to help with
> Arduino projects.

Really need more of these kinds of things outside of major metro areas,
but yes, it's encouraging to see :)

(Reminds me, I should do a writeup over in alt.music.makers.electronic
and rec.music.makers.synth on the MFOS synthesizer I'm building...!)

On 2024-11-05, rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Nov 2024 20:08:02 -0500, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>> Only we 'older people' learned to make due, sculpt ASM, for chips
>> with teenie-weenie RAM/ROM. The follow-ons think only in
>> mega/giga/terabytes and NEVER in terms of optimizing code. Hand them
>> a PIC-12f series chip and they'd ask how to start Win-12 on it.
>
> When I interviewed for my current job about 25 years ago one of the
> interview questions started with 'Assume you have unlimited memory...' I
> thought to myself that I was entering a different world.

When a PPOE upgraded its Univac 9300 from 16K of memory to 32K,
we wondered what we would do with all that space. (We soon
figured that out.)

On the other hand, I recently re-worked a summary report program
to build the entire table in memory and spew it out after all
input files had been read, because I realized that these days,
given the finite volume of data I'm working with, I effectively
_do_ have unlimited memory. So I threw out lots of disk sorts,
matching routines, etc. That program now runs _fast_ - but I
guess speed vs. memory was always the classic trade-off.

--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey

On 05/11/2024 20:31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
> On the other hand, I recently re-worked a summary report program
> to build the entire table in memory and spew it out after all
> input files had been read, because I realized that these days,
> given the finite volume of data I'm working with, I effectively
> _do_ have unlimited memory.

I have a friend who does maths research, involving operations on
gigantic matrices.
His original code, some of which is assembler to access some obscure
INTEL instructions to do with vector maths, was designed to use 128GB.
On someone else's extremely expensive computer in a far away land.
That is no longer an option, and he spent last week rewriting it to suit
the biggest motherboard he can easily obtain.

Typically a run takes several months. The power usage on the computer is
about 500W.

So people can still find ways to push the limits of computers.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 07:33:29 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> I thought it well-known that Microsoft sells Windows dirt-cheap to OEMs.

I wonder how cheap dirt is these days? OEM keys that fell off the back of
a truck are cheap enough. Anyway I have no regrets when I overwrite
Windows.

On 5 Nov 2024 20:18:34 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> ... 'Assume you have unlimited memory...' ...

The paradox of today’s computer architectures is that, while memory is
cheap, accessing that memory is expensive.

On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 12:24:24 -0800, John Ames wrote:

> On 5 Nov 2024 20:07:07 GMT rbowman <bowman@montana.com> wrote:
>
>> > Just glad a LOT of people are still into this sort of stuff - don't
>> > think a smartphone is the end-all of tech. The spirit of Radio Shack
>> > lives on.
>>
>> When they built the new library they incorporated a maker space rather
>> than a few things stuffed into a meeting room. I don't think it's a
>> formal class but someone is available Saturdays to help with Arduino
>> projects.
>
> Really need more of these kinds of things outside of major metro areas,
> but yes, it's encouraging to see

Nobody ever accused Missoula of being a major metro area :) I should
cruise by more often to see what the utilization is. I'm guilty of using
the libby app to borrow digital books delivered via Amazon without setting
foot in the library. Times are changing. The new library does have
physical books but a lot of floor space is devoted to a childrens'
discovery area, the maker space, a video creation area, and even a demo
kitchen.

On Tue, 05 Nov 2024 20:31:23 GMT, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

> When a PPOE upgraded its Univac 9300 from 16K of memory to 32K,
> we wondered what we would do with all that space. (We soon figured that
> out.)

The System 360/30 did have 32k but for some operations you had to write
partial products to tape, rewind, and take another pass.

On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> On 05/11/2024 20:31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>> On the other hand, I recently re-worked a summary report program to
>> build the entire table in memory and spew it out after all input files
>> had been read, because I realized that these days, given the finite
>> volume of data I'm working with, I effectively _do_ have unlimited
>> memory.
>
> I have a friend who does maths research, involving operations on
> gigantic matrices.
> His original code, some of which is assembler to access some obscure
> INTEL instructions to do with vector maths, was designed to use 128GB.
> On someone else's extremely expensive computer in a far away land.
> That is no longer an option, and he spent last week rewriting it to suit
> the biggest motherboard he can easily obtain.
>
> Typically a run takes several months. The power usage on the computer is
> about 500W.
>
> So people can still find ways to push the limits of computers.

AI is great for that. You know you're in trouble when companies are trying
to buy nuclear plants to keep the lights in in the computing centers.

It doesn't get as much mention yet but all that energy eventually becomes
heat. Is the answer something like the Seabrook nuke where you can use the
Atlantic to keep the processors cool? When they were building Seabrook one
of the spins was that the lobsters would love their cozy new homes.

On 11/5/24 7:26 PM, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 05/11/2024 20:31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On the other hand, I recently re-worked a summary report program to
>>> build the entire table in memory and spew it out after all input files
>>> had been read, because I realized that these days, given the finite
>>> volume of data I'm working with, I effectively _do_ have unlimited
>>> memory.
>>
>> I have a friend who does maths research, involving operations on
>> gigantic matrices.
>> His original code, some of which is assembler to access some obscure
>> INTEL instructions to do with vector maths, was designed to use 128GB.
>> On someone else's extremely expensive computer in a far away land.
>> That is no longer an option, and he spent last week rewriting it to suit
>> the biggest motherboard he can easily obtain.
>>
>> Typically a run takes several months. The power usage on the computer is
>> about 500W.
>>
>> So people can still find ways to push the limits of computers.
>
> AI is great for that. You know you're in trouble when companies are trying
> to buy nuclear plants to keep the lights in in the computing centers.
>
> It doesn't get as much mention yet but all that energy eventually becomes
> heat. Is the answer something like the Seabrook nuke where you can use the
> Atlantic to keep the processors cool? When they were building Seabrook one
> of the spins was that the lobsters would love their cozy new homes.

The "nuke plant" thing IS impressive - just a hint
of HOW much energy 'AI' consumes using current
hardware/methods.

Expect the energy hunger to double or triple VERY soon.

The human brain gets by on about 25 watts.

In short, the 'AI' approach everybody's using
just SUCKS ... seriously defective and about
as anti-Green as possible.

On 06/11/2024 00:26, rbowman wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> On 05/11/2024 20:31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>> On the other hand, I recently re-worked a summary report program to
>>> build the entire table in memory and spew it out after all input files
>>> had been read, because I realized that these days, given the finite
>>> volume of data I'm working with, I effectively _do_ have unlimited
>>> memory.
>>
>> I have a friend who does maths research, involving operations on
>> gigantic matrices.
>> His original code, some of which is assembler to access some obscure
>> INTEL instructions to do with vector maths, was designed to use 128GB.
>> On someone else's extremely expensive computer in a far away land.
>> That is no longer an option, and he spent last week rewriting it to suit
>> the biggest motherboard he can easily obtain.
>>
>> Typically a run takes several months. The power usage on the computer is
>> about 500W.
>>
>> So people can still find ways to push the limits of computers.
>
> AI is great for that. You know you're in trouble when companies are trying
> to buy nuclear plants to keep the lights in in the computing centers.
>
Frankly I regard that as pure serendipity.
The world needs nuclear power in unheard of quantities, and if AI is the
trigger to start that avalanche, I dont care if in the end its utterly
pointless.

The nuclear power stations will still be there. and usable

> It doesn't get as much mention yet but all that energy eventually becomes
> heat. Is the answer something like the Seabrook nuke where you can use the
> Atlantic to keep the processors cool? When they were building Seabrook one
> of the spins was that the lobsters would love their cozy new homes.
>

Yes. There is a distinct change in species near the outfalls of coastal
reactors - but its the same for any thermal power plant - aside from CCGT..

60% of the energy ends up as low grade heat. (Its more like 30% on a
CCGT but no one is talking about efficient uses of Uranium via a tow
stage gas/steam turbine setup yet). Its dirt cheap and plentiful. So
waste heat it will be.

But there are more ways of using low grade heat than spaffing it up a
cooling tower. SMRs built near cities, could heat them. Or acres of
polytunnels growing plants unable to survive in the local climate.

De-salination plants for fresh water.

Thermodynamics tells us that in a thermal plant, 100% effeciency is not
available, and its a balance between efficiency and cost. No one is
comfortable mixing extremely hot high pressure steam and nuclear
reactors, so they run at safer temperatures and pressures.

--
The higher up the mountainside
The greener grows the grass.
The higher up the monkey climbs
The more he shows his arse.

Traditional

On 06/11/2024 06:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> In short, the 'AI' approach everybody's using
>   just SUCKS ... seriously defective and about
>   as anti-Green as possible.

Oh, if its anti Green it cant be all bad...
--
"Nature does not give up the winter because people dislike the cold."

― Confucius

On 11/6/24 6:12 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 06/11/2024 06:29, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>> In short, the 'AI' approach everybody's using
>>    just SUCKS ... seriously defective and about
>>    as anti-Green as possible.
>
> Oh, if its anti Green it cant be all bad...

Well ..... just sayin' :-)

On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 11:11:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

> But there are more ways of using low grade heat than spaffing it up a
> cooling tower. SMRs built near cities, could heat them. Or acres of
> polytunnels growing plants unable to survive in the local climate.

District heating has been used for over 200 years.

https://www.powermag.com/district-heating-supply-from-nuclear-power-
plants/

"An extensive study was conducted in Connecticut, which focused on using
waste heat from an existing nuclear power plant. It found substantial
benefits from using nuclear heat, but concluded that the realization of
maximum economic and social benefits would require current laws,
practices, and regulations to be modified. It suggested the larger energy
perspective would have to be considered including desegregating the
treatment of energy, and incorporating land use planning and associated
economic development into the process."

And there is the problem -- existing regulations and the NIMBY phenomenon.
40 years ago I was skeptical about some of the proposed nuclear plants,
not because of the technology but because of the over-optimistic
projections of future demand. That was then.

https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/index.html

Many of the plants are at end of life, and that doesn't count the ones
that were decommissioned long ago like Maine Yankee or San Onofre. It
should be possible to design a plant that lasts longer than 40 or 50
years. That would require a prevailing attitude in the US that thinks in
terms of 20 years. That even was used for the interstate system. Summer
travel in this state can be painful because of the bottlenecks caused by
bridge and pavement replacement.

On 06/11/2024 17:49, rbowman wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 11:11:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> But there are more ways of using low grade heat than spaffing it up a
>> cooling tower. SMRs built near cities, could heat them. Or acres of
>> polytunnels growing plants unable to survive in the local climate.
>
> District heating has been used for over 200 years.
>
> https://www.powermag.com/district-heating-supply-from-nuclear-power-
> plants/
>
> "An extensive study was conducted in Connecticut, which focused on using
> waste heat from an existing nuclear power plant. It found substantial
> benefits from using nuclear heat, but concluded that the realization of
> maximum economic and social benefits would require current laws,
> practices, and regulations to be modified. It suggested the larger energy
> perspective would have to be considered including desegregating the
> treatment of energy, and incorporating land use planning and associated
> economic development into the process."
>

yup. Battersea power station in the middle of london took coal delivered
by rail and river and had a network of hot water pipes feeding local houses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimlico_District_Heating_Undertaking

Everybody in the industry knows that to get the best out of nuclear the
rule book needs to be torn up and re-written using modern understanding
of the real much lower danger from low level radiation.

But politicians wont do that. Not even Trump I suspect.

He is happy to protect the fossil fuels, not hasten their demise with
cheap nuclear

> And there is the problem -- existing regulations and the NIMBY phenomenon.
> 40 years ago I was skeptical about some of the proposed nuclear plants,
> not because of the technology but because of the over-optimistic
> projections of future demand. That was then.
>
> https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/index.html
>
> Many of the plants are at end of life, and that doesn't count the ones
> that were decommissioned long ago like Maine Yankee or San Onofre. It
> should be possible to design a plant that lasts longer than 40 or 50
> years.

As I understand it, the UKs AGR reactors were only supposed to do about
25 years, but made it further. Someone told me that the reason for
closure is in all cases corrosion and loss of strength in materials
subject to heavy neutron bombardment.

The knowledge gained from these early reactors means that at least 40
years is the design target with lifetimes up to 60 envisaged.

In the end its a cost-benefit judgement. More expensive reactors might
last longer, but wouldnt recoup the extra costs in their lifetimes. Maybe.

Uk's first reactor - and the worlds first - lasted 47 years.

That would require a prevailing attitude in the US that thinks in
> terms of 20 years. That even was used for the interstate system. Summer
> travel in this state can be painful because of the bottlenecks caused by
> bridge and pavement replacement.

Its much easier to buy votes than build infratsructure.

--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 11/6/24 6:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 06/11/2024 00:26, rbowman wrote:
>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/11/2024 20:31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>> On the other hand, I recently re-worked a summary report program to
>>>> build the entire table in memory and spew it out after all input files
>>>> had been read, because I realized that these days, given the finite
>>>> volume of data I'm working with, I effectively _do_  have unlimited
>>>> memory.
>>>
>>> I have a friend who does maths research, involving operations on
>>> gigantic matrices.
>>> His original code, some of which is assembler to access some obscure
>>> INTEL instructions to do with vector maths, was designed to use 128GB.
>>> On someone else's extremely expensive computer in a far away land.
>>> That is no longer an option, and he spent last week rewriting it to suit
>>> the biggest motherboard he can easily obtain.
>>>
>>> Typically a run takes several months. The power usage on the computer is
>>> about 500W.
>>>
>>> So people can still find ways to push the limits of computers.
>>
>> AI is great for that. You know you're in trouble when companies are
>> trying
>> to buy nuclear plants to keep the lights in in the computing centers.
>>
> Frankly I regard that as pure serendipity.
> The world needs nuclear power in unheard of quantities, and if AI is the
> trigger to start that avalanche, I dont care if in the end its utterly
> pointless.
>
> The nuclear power stations will still be there. and usable
>
>
>> It doesn't get as much mention yet but all that energy eventually becomes
>> heat. Is the answer something like the Seabrook nuke where you can use
>> the
>> Atlantic to keep the processors cool? When they were building Seabrook
>> one
>> of the spins was that the lobsters would love their cozy new homes.
>>
>
> Yes. There is a distinct change in species near the outfalls of coastal
> reactors - but its the same for any thermal power plant - aside from CCGT..
>
> 60% of  the energy ends up as low grade heat. (Its more like 30% on a
> CCGT but no one is talking about efficient uses of Uranium via a tow
> stage gas/steam turbine setup yet). Its dirt cheap and plentiful. So
> waste heat it will be.
>
> But there are more ways of using low grade heat than spaffing it up a
> cooling tower. SMRs built near cities, could heat them. Or acres of
> polytunnels growing plants unable to survive in the local climate.
>
> De-salination plants for fresh water.
>
> Thermodynamics tells us that in a thermal plant, 100% effeciency is not
> available, and its a balance between efficiency and cost. No one is
> comfortable mixing extremely hot high pressure steam and nuclear
> reactors, so they run at safer temperatures and pressures.

An insane amount of energy goes into just HEATING WATER
for whatever uses.

If yer nuke plant has pre-heated the water, as you said,
there are many uses for it, recover an extra percentage of
the heat.

They keep trying to get more electricity from 'lower'
quality heat sources ... but from what I can tell it
may not be worth it except maybe in a space station
or similar. Easier to just use "warm" for what it is.

Anyway, thermodynamics is The Law and no kind of power
plant is gonna be close to 100% efficiency.

On 11/6/24 1:38 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 06/11/2024 17:49, rbowman wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Nov 2024 11:11:41 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> But there are more ways of using low grade heat than spaffing it up a
>>> cooling tower. SMRs built near cities, could heat them. Or acres of
>>> polytunnels growing plants unable to survive in the local climate.
>>
>> District heating has been used for over 200 years.
>>
>> https://www.powermag.com/district-heating-supply-from-nuclear-power-
>> plants/
>>
>> "An extensive study was conducted in Connecticut, which focused on using
>> waste heat from an existing nuclear power plant. It found substantial
>> benefits from using nuclear heat, but concluded that the realization of
>> maximum economic and social benefits would require current laws,
>> practices, and regulations to be modified. It suggested the larger energy
>> perspective would have to be considered including desegregating the
>> treatment of energy, and incorporating land use planning and associated
>> economic development into the process."
>>
>
> yup. Battersea power station in the middle of london took coal delivered
> by rail and river and had a network of hot water pipes feeding local
> houses.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pimlico_District_Heating_Undertaking
>
> Everybody in the industry knows that to get the best out of nuclear the
> rule book needs to be torn up and re-written using modern understanding
> of the real much lower danger from low level radiation.
>
> But politicians wont do that. Not even Trump I suspect.
>
> He is happy to protect the fossil fuels, not hasten their demise with
> cheap nuclear
>
>
>> And there is the problem -- existing regulations and the NIMBY
>> phenomenon.
>> 40 years ago I was skeptical about some of the proposed nuclear plants,
>> not because of the technology but because of the over-optimistic
>> projections of future demand.  That was then.
>>
>> https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommissioning/power-reactor/index.html
>>
>> Many of the plants are at end of life, and that doesn't count the ones
>> that were decommissioned long ago like Maine Yankee or San Onofre. It
>> should be possible to design a plant that lasts longer than 40 or 50
>> years.
>
> As I understand it, the UKs AGR reactors were only supposed to do about
> 25 years, but made it further. Someone told me that the reason for
> closure is in all cases corrosion and loss of strength in materials
> subject to heavy neutron bombardment.
>
> The knowledge gained from these early reactors means that at least 40
> years is the design target with lifetimes up to 60 envisaged.
>
> In the end its a cost-benefit judgement. More expensive reactors might
> last longer, but wouldnt recoup the extra costs in their lifetimes. Maybe.
>
> Uk's first reactor - and the worlds first - lasted 47 years.
>
> That would require a prevailing attitude in the US that thinks in
>> terms of 20 years. That even was used for the interstate system. Summer
>> travel in this state can be painful because of the bottlenecks caused by
>> bridge and pavement replacement.
>
> Its much easier to buy votes than build infratsructure.

From a few negative experiences, the one thing you REALLY
need to guard against is some kind of melt-down. To that
end, "pebble bed" reactors are THE solution. Word is that
China is building a number of them right now.

The thermodynamic efficiency of pebble beds isn't AS great
as with some modern designs, but the SAFETY factor is
WORTH it IMHO.

On 06/11/2024 21:41, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
> On 11/6/24 6:11 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 06/11/2024 00:26, rbowman wrote:
>>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2024 23:38:55 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/11/2024 20:31, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>>>>> On the other hand, I recently re-worked a summary report program to
>>>>> build the entire table in memory and spew it out after all input files
>>>>> had been read, because I realized that these days, given the finite
>>>>> volume of data I'm working with, I effectively _do_  have unlimited
>>>>> memory.
>>>>
>>>> I have a friend who does maths research, involving operations on
>>>> gigantic matrices.
>>>> His original code, some of which is assembler to access some obscure
>>>> INTEL instructions to do with vector maths, was designed to use 128GB.
>>>> On someone else's extremely expensive computer in a far away land.
>>>> That is no longer an option, and he spent last week rewriting it to
>>>> suit
>>>> the biggest motherboard he can easily obtain.
>>>>
>>>> Typically a run takes several months. The power usage on the
>>>> computer is
>>>> about 500W.
>>>>
>>>> So people can still find ways to push the limits of computers.
>>>
>>> AI is great for that. You know you're in trouble when companies are
>>> trying
>>> to buy nuclear plants to keep the lights in in the computing centers.
>>>
>> Frankly I regard that as pure serendipity.
>> The world needs nuclear power in unheard of quantities, and if AI is
>> the trigger to start that avalanche, I dont care if in the end its
>> utterly pointless.
>>
>> The nuclear power stations will still be there. and usable
>>
>>
>>> It doesn't get as much mention yet but all that energy eventually
>>> becomes
>>> heat. Is the answer something like the Seabrook nuke where you can
>>> use the
>>> Atlantic to keep the processors cool? When they were building
>>> Seabrook one
>>> of the spins was that the lobsters would love their cozy new homes.
>>>
>>
>> Yes. There is a distinct change in species near the outfalls of
>> coastal reactors - but its the same for any thermal power plant -
>> aside from CCGT..
>>
>> 60% of  the energy ends up as low grade heat. (Its more like 30% on a
>> CCGT but no one is talking about efficient uses of Uranium via a tow
>> stage gas/steam turbine setup yet). Its dirt cheap and plentiful. So
>> waste heat it will be.
>>
>> But there are more ways of using low grade heat than spaffing it up a
>> cooling tower. SMRs built near cities, could heat them. Or acres of
>> polytunnels growing plants unable to survive in the local climate.
>>
>> De-salination plants for fresh water.
>>
>> Thermodynamics tells us that in a thermal plant, 100% effeciency is
>> not available, and its a balance between efficiency and cost. No one
>> is comfortable mixing extremely hot high pressure steam and nuclear
>> reactors, so they run at safer temperatures and pressures.
>
>
>   An insane amount of energy goes into just HEATING WATER
>   for whatever uses.
>
>   If yer nuke plant has pre-heated the water, as you said,
>   there are many uses for it, recover an extra percentage of
>   the heat.
>
Yes. The phrase is 'low grade heat' - so near to ambient that very
little mechanical energy can be extracted, but sill enough to heat
[green] houses.

>   They keep trying to get more electricity from 'lower'
>   quality heat sources ... but from what I can tell it
>   may not be worth it except maybe in a space station
>   or similar. Easier to just use "warm" for what it is.
>
Basically yes. Uranium is cheap. The power statins are expensive. Just
use more uranium

>   Anyway, thermodynamics is The Law and no kind of power
>   plant is gonna be close to 100% efficiency.

Thermal plant, anyway.
--
“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit
atrocities.”

― Voltaire, Questions sur les Miracles à M. Claparede, Professeur de
Théologie à Genève, par un Proposant: Ou Extrait de Diverses Lettres de
M. de Voltaire

On 06/11/2024 21:46, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:

>   From a few negative experiences, the one thing you REALLY
>   need to guard against is some kind of melt-down. To that
>   end, "pebble bed" reactors are THE solution. Word is that
>   China is building a number of them right now.
>
SMRs are also meltdown proof, in practice.
But a meltdown as in 3MI or Fukushima is by itself only a destroyed
reactor. It represents no public danger.

>   The thermodynamic efficiency of pebble beds isn't AS great
>   as with some modern designs, but the SAFETY factor is
>   WORTH it IMHO.
>
Same for SMRs.

>

--
"And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch".

Gospel of St. Mathew 15:14

On 11/7/24 5:37 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 06/11/2024 21:46, 186282@ud0s4.net wrote:
>
>>    From a few negative experiences, the one thing you REALLY
>>    need to guard against is some kind of melt-down. To that
>>    end, "pebble bed" reactors are THE solution. Word is that
>>    China is building a number of them right now.
>>
> SMRs are also meltdown proof, in practice.
> But a meltdown as in 3MI or Fukushima is by itself only a destroyed
> reactor. It represents no public danger.
>
>
>>    The thermodynamic efficiency of pebble beds isn't AS great
>>    as with some modern designs, but the SAFETY factor is
>>    WORTH it IMHO.
>>
> Same for SMRs.

A key part of "SMR" is *Small* ... but if you want to
power up half a STATE then "small" isn't how to do it.

Or do you propose Edison's vision of a power plant
on every block ?

"Now down here we have the laundry room on the right,
the rec room on the left, and down at the end of the
hall is the reactor room ..."