If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
You made assertions about costs of building a nuclear generating station. Why wouldn't I check those assertions? I stood up in the wedding of a friend who worked for Asea Brown Boveri almost 30 years ago. He worked on Pickering and used to be sent around the world to help build nuclear power stations. We used to have similar discussions with me taking the side that said nuclear was more expensive than most of its proponents accounted for.
I can no longer follow where your logic is taking you, but I can assure you that my experience in matters nuclear far exceeds your falling down, oops, standing up, at a friends wedding thirty years ago!
For Ontario, the last nuclear station completed was Darlington, 1990-93, four units total 3500MW (the "e" is not necessary) for 14.5 billion dollars. Please don't nickel and dime the details, we're talking general figures here. That would be $4114 per kw in 1993 dollars, or at 5% inflation over eighteen years, $10,400 per kw today. Surprisingly close to Beckworth's assertion.....
Two or three years ago the Ontario government abandoned a proposal to extend Darlington because of the terribly high capital cost of AECL's bid, which was, hold your breath .... $10,800 per kw installed.
I am not going to get into a defence of these numbers - they will have to be much lower for AECL to get back into the game in Ontario, and they will claim they will be - but your figures for the U.S. may be true because they do not have the heavy water, which is a capital cost, but do have enriched uranium, which is a very expensive operating cost. Most studies will suggest that a cost comparison of the generated power between the two is a saw-off over the plant life-time. The problem is that this comparison is totally dependent on the assumptions made over financing and economic factors over long periods of time, which can be very nebulous, in general, and certainly political in detail.
Enough! My point is that your pronouncements on nuclear power are not believable, show no real knowledge, and suggest to me that you treat the whole complicated debate on global warming with the same lack of rigour. So I don't believe anything you say!
I can no longer follow where your logic is taking you, but I can assure you that my experience in matters nuclear far exceeds your falling down, oops, standing up, at a friends wedding thirty years ago!
For Ontario, the last nuclear station completed was Darlington, 1990-93, four units total 3500MW (the "e" is not necessary) for 14.5 billion dollars. Please don't nickel and dime the details, we're talking general figures here. That would be $4114 per kw in 1993 dollars, or at 5% inflation over eighteen years, $10,400 per kw today. Surprisingly close to Beckworth's assertion.....
And yet the consumer price index for Canada hasn't been anywhere near 5% in any of the years since then and in fact has been below 2% over most of that period.
Pardon me, if I colour you as just another person with an axe to grind who plays fast and loose with his figures just like Paul.
Two or three years ago the Ontario government abandoned a proposal to extend Darlington because of the terribly high capital cost of AECL's bid, which was, hold your breath .... $10,800 per kw installed.
I am not going to get into a defence of these numbers - they will have to be much lower for AECL to get back into the game in Ontario, and they will claim they will be - but your figures for the U.S. may be true because they do not have the heavy water, which is a capital cost, but do have enriched uranium, which is a very expensive operating cost. Most studies will suggest that a cost comparison of the generated power between the two is a saw-off over the plant life-time. The problem is that this comparison is totally dependent on the assumptions made over financing and economic factors over long periods of time, which can be very nebulous, in general, and certainly political in detail.
The assumptions made over financing are not that nebulous. You use the discount rate that matches your marginal cost of capital.
Enough! My point is that your pronouncements on nuclear power are not believable, show no real knowledge, and suggest to me that you treat the whole complicated debate on global warming with the same lack of rigour. So I don't believe anything you say!
Better luck with your chess.....
Well your pronouncements on nuclear power are not believable (since you seem to believe that 5% compounding over 18 years leads to the same result as 1% to 2.4% compounding), show no real knowledge, and suggest to me that you treat the whole complicated debate on global warming with the same lack of rigour.
I don't care if you believe me or not. I will be dead before the temperature goes up 2 degrees Celsius by the year 2100 if the worst case comes to fruition. I think mankind will survive and adapt. I believe that global cooling is more of a danger than global warming as we have survived warmer temperatures than the realistic worst case figures [2 degrees] without all the technology to help us.
Thanks for wishing me luck with the chess.
Last edited by Vlad Drkulec; Sunday, 20th March, 2011, 07:41 PM.
I didn't see the interview. I think Harper lost my vote the last few days. I'm not thrilled seeing us in another costly conflict.
Expect us to get into more costly conflicts over the years no matter who wins the election. Harper's advantage is that he is the lesser evil out of the alternatives that we have.
I am not sure what all of our wars have accomplished. In Afghanistan, we still have an environment where it is okay to throw acid in little girls' faces because they want to learn to read and write.
Once again, Vlad demonstrates an ignorance of basics physics.
Energy is measured in Joules.
Power is measured in Watts (Joules/second)
Kilo = 1000x
Kilowatt*hour = kWh = unit that appears on our electricity bills
1 kWh = 1000 (Joules/second) x 1 hour (x3600 seconds/hour) = 3.6x10**6 Joules is
a unit of energy
Power plants (note they are called Power plants, not energy plants as Vlad thought) are usually rated in MW (1 million Watts) or even GW (1 billion Watts).
Vlad is not expected to know this because he has taken business courses (without getting the degree).
The only reason I give my background areas of study is so the reader knows when I talk about physics, math, engineering, climate change I know what I am talking about, when Vlad talks about business he may know more than others since he studied this...
I guess it depends on which evil is more palitable to the voters.
Cynical is doing the dirty work on the weekend when the financial markets are closed to minimize the damage of uncertainty when they open Monday morning. In case anyone is wondering about the Blitzkrieg on the weekend.
And yet the consumer price index for Canada hasn't been anywhere near 5% in any of the years since then and in fact has been below 2% over most of that period.
[I]I believe it's the cost of capital financing, not CPI, that is the important figure here. Quite a bit more than 2%[/I]
Pardon me, if I colour you as just another person with an axe to grind who plays fast and loose with his figures just like Paul.
[I]I have no axe to grind[/I]
The assumptions made over financing are not that nebulous. You use the discount rate that matches your marginal cost of capital.
And you can predict the cost of financing these huge expenditures over the next twenty years?
Well your pronouncements on nuclear power are not believable (since you seem to believe that 5% compounding over 18 years leads to the same result as 1% to 2.4% compounding), show no real knowledge, and suggest to me that you treat the whole complicated debate on global warming with the same lack of rigour.
I have expessed absolutely no opinion on global warming. I asked you not to nickel and dime the figures, but no, you are incapable of that, as you are at grasping some basic fundamentals of energy and capacity units, and of project financing. Forget the compounding, the last AECL bid to Ontario was $10,800 per kw, forget the "e"
I should have remembered that it is pointless to argue with someone that has that certainty of opinion that runs on emotion rather than science.....
By the way, tacking an e on to the end of a power number, like MWe or kWe for example is sometimes done to indicate that this power is in electrical form (as opposed to MWt for example, which would be thermal power). All power plants heat water to produce steam to run electrical generators, whether they be use oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear, etc to heat the water. Thus e is not a unit but a designation for electrical. Conversion efficiency of the plant is just the ratio MWe/MWt * 100%, typically in the range of 30-40% or even lower.
Anyone (like Vlad) can find links to this stuff and post them to try to trick people into thinking that knowledge (thought) is behind the post; unlike Vlad I understand this stuff as Fred does (aside: I worked for Ontario Hydro for a summer job in 3rd year university working on fortran code simulating bidirectional fueling, cadmium control rod cooling, and boron injection shut-down systems for Candu reactor systems, and simulating LOCA (loss of coolant accidents)...cadmium and boron have high neutron cross sections and thus scavenge the slow neutrons taking the reactor sub-critical...
Vlad, the more you post the sillier you look...please stop making stuff up...HTH...
Fred, the arguing is not for Vlads sake. It is for the other readers of this site that do not post. I think that they should get correct information; they know after a while who to get it from and who to laugh (privately) at...
Originally Posted by Vlad Drkulec
And yet the consumer price index for Canada hasn't been anywhere near 5% in any of the years since then and in fact has been below 2% over most of that period.
I believe it's the cost of capital financing, not CPI, that is the important figure here. Quite a bit more than 2%
The cost of financing is not the correct number to use in determining the present day cost after inflation of a nuclear power station. The correct method is a discounted cash flow model (net present value) where the discount rate is the marginal after tax cost of capital.
Pardon me, if I colour you as just another person with an axe to grind who plays fast and loose with his figures just like Paul.
I have no axe to grind
The assumptions made over financing are not that nebulous. You use the discount rate that matches your marginal cost of capital.
And you can predict the cost of financing these huge expenditures over the next twenty years?
Yes, because you will finance them with 20 or 25 or 30 year bonds. You match the financing to the life of the asset being financed. Since you imply intimate knowledge of the nuclear industry, you should know this. This practice is not confined to the nuclear industry. Most industry operates in the same manner.
Well your pronouncements on nuclear power are not believable (since you seem to believe that 5% compounding over 18 years leads to the same result as 1% to 2.4% compounding), show no real knowledge, and suggest to me that you treat the whole complicated debate on global warming with the same lack of rigour.
I have expessed absolutely no opinion on global warming. I asked you not to nickel and dime the figures, but no, you are incapable of that, as you are at grasping some basic fundamentals of energy and capacity units, and of project financing. Forget the compounding, the last AECL bid to Ontario was $10,800 per kw, forget the "e"
I should have remembered that it is pointless to argue with someone that has that certainty of opinion that runs on emotion rather than science.....
Vlad is not expected to know this because he has taken business courses (without getting the degree).
You sound really creepy the way you are stalking me. Making a claim that I did not receive a degree absent any evidence is defamatory. I suggest you cease and desist immediately. It is par for the course and what can be expected from the climate extremists. We all saw what they did in the release of the climategate emails. I don't expect that you would exhibit any different behaviour.
If you would like to make a little wager on whether I received a degree or not perhaps we could arrange something along the lines that if I never received a degree then I never post on this thread again. If you'd like we could even extend the ban to me never posting on chess talk again if I lose the wager. Similarly if I did receive at least one or more degrees then you will never again post off topic (not involving chess) on Chesstalk effectively ending your participation in this thread or any other which is not related to chess.
If you don't take that wager then you are gutless :p or else you knew all along that you were lying :o but then that is par for the course for you global warming extremists. You and your "climate scientists" and politicians involved in profiting from green technology have a long history of lying for the cause and using dirty tricks to discredit your opponents. I have to tell you that it is catching up to you. Its one reason why most people don't believe in you and don't care about your cause.
Now as to where this is coming from,... you experienced a lot of pain when you washed out and didn't finish your doctoral degree and now you are lashing out and projecting your own experience onto me. Is that what this is all about? :D
Tweet
Comment