Fusion, Maybe...

[server]

Mike Monett <spamme@not.com> wrote in news:XnsAE47EFDE9A370idtokenpost@
144.76.35.252:

This is the classical pump and dump scheme.

Your retarded comments are the classical Spew and Froth Utterance
Stupidity.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<p1td1hpe3sotvri1h2g8mrjkalnvrcs6ld@4ax.com>:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-23 16:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9

Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"

I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?


Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.

Jeroen Belleman


\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse
mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?




It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,
sorry.

Jeroen Belleman

Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn\'t take a lot to
improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
to cook and not freeze to death.

Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.

That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
70% of \'trickety there is already nuclear.
Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?)
and used Fuckupshima fear to get the masses to vote for it.

Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their own people by fracking
and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs automatically.
Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low IQ followers buying that
and look at the \'size\' of the land they stole from the native Americans
you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the rest of the world.
I am not sure such a scenario can now be excluded.
If you do the maaz that is.
Us neural nets .. AI deployed..
Maybe that vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too.
Yea man,

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9

Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"

I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?


Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.

Jeroen Belleman


\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse
mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?




It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,
sorry.

Jeroen Belleman

Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn\'t take a lot to
improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
to cook and not freeze to death.

Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.
That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
70% of \'trickety there is already nuclear.

Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they\'ve tried to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?)
and used Fuckupshima fear to get the masses to vote for it.

Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their own people by fracking
and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs automatically.

How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought that was the Germans who are killing the deal because of the invasion of the Ukraine?

Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low IQ followers buying that
and look at the \'size\' of the land they stole from the native Americans

Which nutcase President are you referring to exactly? Saying \"nutcase\" doesn\'t narrow it down so much.

you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the rest of the world.
I am not sure such a scenario can now be excluded.
If you do the maaz that is.
Us neural nets .. AI deployed..
Maybe that vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too.
Yea man,

You truly are strange, dude!

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[David Brown]

On 24/02/2022 07:40, Rick C wrote:

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:

Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of
poverty, the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn\'t take
a lot to improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water,
enough heat to cook and not freeze to death.

Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative
experiment.
That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
70% of \'trickety there is already nuclear.

Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they\'ve
tried to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a
decade and many billions over budget. I guess if they keep building
plants like those they will end up a third world country and we will
have to send them aid.

I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in France,
but they get over 70% of their electricity from nuclear power, and are a
big exporter of electricity. They must be doing /something/ right.

Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US
pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?) and used Fuckupshima
fear to get the masses to vote for it.

Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning
their own people by fracking and selling it to Europe it (US)
self-destructs automatically.

How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought
that was the Germans who are killing the deal because of the invasion
of the Ukraine?

The US has been against Northstream 2 since its inception. Russia\'s
export of gas to Europe is a significant source of income for Russia -
of course the USA has always been against it. Germany has resisted this
American pressure, however - since they stupidly closed their nuclear
power plants they have had little choice but to buy Russian gas. They
are now pausing (but not irrevocably killing) the Northstream 2 project
because of Russia\'s actions in Ukraine.

Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and
his low IQ followers buying that and look at the \'size\' of the land
they stole from the native Americans

Which nutcase President are you referring to exactly? Saying
\"nutcase\" doesn\'t narrow it down so much.

you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the rest
of the world. I am not sure such a scenario can now be excluded. If
you do the maaz that is. Us neural nets .. AI deployed.. Maybe that
vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too. Yea man,

You truly are strange, dude!

Indeed!

 

[David Brown]

On 24/02/2022 05:34, Mike Monett wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

[...]

Fusion is Fraud

It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it
will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost
of renewable sources like solar and wind.

The tokamak versions don\'t look promising, except as giant money
sinks. Some other form of fusion might be practical.

Fantastic breakthroughs are announced regularly. Stock shares increase in
value, which are then sold off at huge profit. Nothing more is heard of the
breakthrough, until a new breakthrough is announced. The cycle repeats.

This is the classical pump and dump scheme.

The big fusion research facilities (Tokamak and others) are not
commercial. There are no stocks and no profits. There is pressure to
get results to help keep the funding, but it is not remotely \"pump and
dump\". Negative results - finding out what doesn\'t work, and where the
problems lie - is part of the goals of the projects.

Fission is sensible but scares people.

True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don\'t apply to Thorium
Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot melt down. They
operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste products are
commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

TMSR\'s are walk-away safe. A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of
power. The molten salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon
moderators. The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
over.

Yes, there are many advantages of this kind of design. They also don\'t
produce plutonium or bomb-grade uranium, they get about two orders of
magnitude more electricity out of the fuel than current uranium
reactors. The waste is not only correspondingly smaller in quantity, it
is not nearly as unpleasant.

We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s fairly
nasty.

Fossile fuels produce CO2.

Yes.

And if you have enough electricity from clearer sources, there are
better uses of natural gas than burning it.

 

[David Brown]

On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


Fission is sensible but scares people.
True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don\'t apply to
Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot
melt down.

But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you will
find out the hard way. Melting isn\'t the problem - producing heat
that you can\'t get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because the
diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant got
flooded and stopped working.

Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to avoid
a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have a design
that can\'t melt, you don\'t have the same kind of problem. With a TMSR,
even the worst combination of failures does not result in an explosion
or the release of radioactive elements.

There are some other technical challenges with TMSR\'s - no one is
claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications will
be found as the current batch of experimental and research work
continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current uranium
reactors (which are themselves much safer than older plants, such as
Fukushima).

They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste
products are commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium,
neodymium and molebdenum.

Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you have
with a regular nuclear reactor.

No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far less
problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium reactor. (That
doesn\'t mean that getting useful metals out of it is necessarily easy or
cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of the waste compared to
conventional reactors.

Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture to
Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it can
undergo nuclear fission.

Yes, that\'s the point - that\'s what makes it safe.

TMSR\'s are walk-away safe.

Until they aren\'t.

What a silly thing to say.

A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten salt
drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators. The
nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is over.

If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have a
way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
remaining frozen but broke everything else! That\'s the point of this
design it is \"fail safe\" - lots of things must be actively running in
order for the fusion to continue. That is not the case with uranium.

And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put the
critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get flooded.

 

[Jeff Layman]

On 24/02/2022 08:36, David Brown wrote:

> I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in France,

EDF, who are partially owned by the French government.

They are currently building a nuclear power station in the UK (Hinkley
C; it will have two reactors), and will probably build another here -
Sizewell C, which will also have two reactors. Each is planned to
provide power for 6 million homes.

--

Jeff

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 24/02/22 08:36, David Brown wrote:

On 24/02/2022 07:40, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:


Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of
poverty, the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn\'t take
a lot to improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water,
enough heat to cook and not freeze to death.

Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative
experiment.
That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
70% of \'trickety there is already nuclear.

Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they\'ve
tried to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a
decade and many billions over budget. I guess if they keep building
plants like those they will end up a third world country and we will
have to send them aid.


I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in France,
but they get over 70% of their electricity from nuclear power, and are a
big exporter of electricity. They must be doing /something/ right.


Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US
pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?) and used Fuckupshima
fear to get the masses to vote for it.

Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning
their own people by fracking and selling it to Europe it (US)
self-destructs automatically.

How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought
that was the Germans who are killing the deal because of the invasion
of the Ukraine?


The US has been against Northstream 2 since its inception. Russia\'s
export of gas to Europe is a significant source of income for Russia -
of course the USA has always been against it. Germany has resisted this
American pressure, however - since they stupidly closed their nuclear
power plants they have had little choice but to buy Russian gas. They
are now pausing (but not irrevocably killing) the Northstream 2 project
because of Russia\'s actions in Ukraine.

When gas prices are low, the USA fracking operations are
uneconomic. No gas through Nordstream 2 will increase the
gas price in Europe and encourage them to look for other
supplies - and you can guess the rest.

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9

Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html

But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount

of energy that is produced.\"

I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"

energy?


Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


Jeroen Belleman


\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse

mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?




It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,

sorry.

Jeroen Belleman

Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn\'t take a lot to
improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
to cook and not freeze to death.

Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.
That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
70% of \'trickety there is already nuclear.

Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they\'ve tried
to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they
will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
Look up Euratom too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

\'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.
And with a commander like that .. maybe he byethen cannot even read that.

Remember that Pakistani guy who worked there and took the centrifuge knowledge with him to Pakistan
and was a hero there as he gave them the bomb?

Man in my highschool physics classes I had to calculate one! Teacher was into it.
Any kid can do it, given the hardware and Euros, (not dooolaars, those are worth nothing now anymore)..

Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US pressure (
fear of Germany making a bomb?)
and used Fuckupshima fear to get the masses to vote for it.

Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their own
people by fracking
and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs automatically.

How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought that was
the Germans who are killing the deal because of the invasion of the Ukraine?

It has been sabotaged by the US for years, US sanctioned the companies working on it
used extensive lobbying against it, used silly arguments like \'it made Europe depend on Russia\'

Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low
IQ followers buying that
and look at the \'size\' of the land they stole from the native Americans

Which
nutcase President are you referring to exactly? Saying \"nutcase\" doesn\'t
narrow it down so much.

True, I mean the one that appeared on teefee lately and tried the religious clown thing
\'how in the name of Christ can they do that sort of thing\'
trying to get an \'Uncle Sam Needs You\' of the ground to get rid of all the blacks and whites in a war he cannot win like Vietnam..
To unite... Old trick: create a common enemy... History and Hysteria repeats itself
Biden is a dangerous nutcase and so are his puppeteers

you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the rest of the
world.
I am not sure such a scenario can now be excluded.
If you do the maaz that is.
Us neural nets .. AI deployed..
Maybe that vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too.
Yea man,

You truly are strange, dude!

As I have pointed out before, you humming beans are brought here by storks,
I was likely dropped by a flying cup and saucer, that was obvious from the beginning

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:22:43 PM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:

On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


Fission is sensible but scares people.

True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don\'t apply to
Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot
melt down.

But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you will
find out the hard way. Melting isn\'t the problem - producing heat
that you can\'t get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because the
diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant got
flooded and stopped working.

Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to avoid
a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have a design
that can\'t melt, you don\'t have the same kind of problem.

There are others.

> With a TMSR, even the worst combination of failures does not result in an explosion or the release of radioactive elements.

It might not result in an explosion, but if the molten salt get hot enough to melt it\'s container, the radioactive elements will escape.

And there really isn\'t an upper limit to the temperatures you can get get if a nuclear reactor runs away - volatilise the molten salts and it could look very like an explosion.

There are some other technical challenges with TMSR\'s - no one is
claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications will
be found as the current batch of experimental and research work
continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current uranium
reactors (which are themselves much safer than older plants, such as
Fukushima).

They may be safer, but they aren\'t all that safe.The worst case nuclear accident is somebody dropping an atomic bomb on a reactor, and a thorium reactor would offer much the same mass of radioactive matrerial to be dispersed.

They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode.The waste
products are commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium,
neodymium and molebdenum.

Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you have
with a regular nuclear reactor.

No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far less
problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium reactor. (That
doesn\'t mean that getting useful metals out of it is necessarily easy or
cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of the waste compared to
conventional reactors.

In fact it is equally problematic, but there is less of it. We still haven\'t got any kind of longer term repository for radioactive waste and we\'ve been generating it for about eighty years now. It may be a small problem, but like the very small baby, it isn\'t one that you can ignore.

Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture to
Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it can
undergo nuclear fission.

Yes, that\'s the point - that\'s what makes it safe.

But what you end up with is just as dangerous as the products of splitting U-235. You don\'t transmute loads of U-238 in the process, so it may be somewhat less dangerous, but it isn\'t remotely safe.

TMSR\'s are walk-away safe.

Until they aren\'t.

What a silly thing to say.

Everybody says that stuff is \"walk-away safe\" until some unanticipated problem comes up

A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten salt
drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators. The
nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is over.

If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have a
way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug remaining frozen but broke everything else!

If it blocked the drain path, melting the plug wouldn\'t serve any useful purpose.

> That\'s the point of this design it is \"fail safe\" - lots of things must be actively running in order for the fission to continue. That is not the case with uranium.

Since it depends on splitting U-233 rather than U-235, this isn\'t entirely obvious.

> And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get flooded.

That\'s one lesson. Each new disaster teaches us another.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 06:04:26 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
p1td1hpe3sotvri1h2g8mrjkalnvrcs6ld@4ax.com>:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-23 16:40, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9

Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to
reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html
But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount
of energy that is produced.\"

I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"
energy?


Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.

Jeroen Belleman


\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse
mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?




It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,
sorry.

Jeroen Belleman

Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn\'t take a lot to
improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
to cook and not freeze to death.

Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.

That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
70% of \'trickety there is already nuclear.
Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?)
and used Fuckupshima fear to get the masses to vote for it.

Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning their own people by fracking
and selling it to Europe it (US) self-destructs automatically.

NG is wonderful and fracking is great. What a gift.

We might sell some LNG to Germany now and then, when they are freezing
in the dark and we don\'t have any better offers.

France might make them a deal on leftover electricity too.

We need to form OFEG, the Organization For Extorting Germans.

Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and his low IQ followers buying that
and look at the \'size\' of the land they stole from the native Americans

I was just reading about the tribal behavior of the Plains natives.
They didn\'t exactly live in harmony.

That lead to a conjecture: wars are started over access to
high-quality protein, namely meat.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[David Brown]

On 24/02/2022 12:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:22:43 PM UTC+11, David Brown
wrote:
On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


Fission is sensible but scares people.

True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don\'t apply to
Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and
cannot melt down.

But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you
will find out the hard way. Melting isn\'t the problem - producing
heat that you can\'t get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because
the diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant
got flooded and stopped working.

Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to
avoid a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have
a design that can\'t melt, you don\'t have the same kind of problem.

There are others.

With a TMSR, even the worst combination of failures does not result
in an explosion or the release of radioactive elements.

It might not result in an explosion, but if the molten salt get hot
enough to melt it\'s container, the radioactive elements will escape.

And there really isn\'t an upper limit to the temperatures you can get
get if a nuclear reactor runs away - volatilise the molten salts and
it could look very like an explosion.

Thorium itself cannot sustain a fission reaction. As you noted
yourself, it needs a slow neutron to turn it into uranium, which can
then decay. If it is spread out enough, there is no way that enough
neutrons from decaying uranium can activate enough thorium to end up
sustaining a reaction. Drop the molten thorium salt into a container
(it\'s /not/ hard to make a container that will withstand far higher
temperatures than those in the reactor, and also withstand an earthquake
- re-enforced concrete will be fine). Gravity will spread the splat,
and the reaction stops.

You have a bit of cleaning up to do, scraping up the solidified and
somewhat radioactive mess. But it is all contained and safe, and you
can probably just melt it again and put it back in once you are running
again.

There are some other technical challenges with TMSR\'s - no one is
claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications
will be found as the current batch of experimental and research
work continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current
uranium reactors (which are themselves much safer than older
plants, such as Fukushima).

They may be safer, but they aren\'t all that safe.The worst case
nuclear accident is somebody dropping an atomic bomb on a reactor,
and a thorium reactor would offer much the same mass of radioactive
matrerial to be dispersed.

You are /really/ scraping the barrel here. You think that if you drop
an atomic bomb on the reactor, it\'s the reactor that\'s the problem?
Seriously?

Most of what is in the reactor is /thorium/. It\'s a safe metal - it\'s
found all over the place in rocks. Scattering thorium around the site
of a nuclear bomb detonation is not going to make the slightest difference.


Sure, TMSR are not /completely/ safe. Nor is anything else in this
world. But are you going to tell us how dangerous hydroelectric power
is, since a big enough bomb will burst the damn?

They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode.The
waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon,
zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you
have with a regular nuclear reactor.

No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far
less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium
reactor. (That doesn\'t mean that getting useful metals out of it is
necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of
the waste compared to conventional reactors.

In fact it is equally problematic, but there is less of it.

No, it is not. Please read up about this. Vastly more of the potential
nuclear energy is used in TMSR reactors than conventional uranium
reactors (perhaps because they are designed for that purpose, whereas
conventional reactors were designed to make bomb-grade uranium and
plutonium with electricity as a bonus side-effect). The waste isotopes
do not have anything like the dangerous lifespans of the uranium reactor
waste - we are talking 100 years rather than 10,000 years.

We still
haven\'t got any kind of longer term repository for radioactive waste
and we\'ve been generating it for about eighty years now. It may be a
small problem, but like the very small baby, it isn\'t one that you
can ignore.

The world has done so quite happily so far. And it\'s a far more
tractable problem than dealing with all the environmental poison and
damage that comes from the fossil fuel industry. A typical coal-fired
power station leaks more radioactive waste than a conventional nuclear
power station, including its waste storage.

Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture
to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it
can undergo nuclear fission.

Yes, that\'s the point - that\'s what makes it safe.

But what you end up with is just as dangerous as the products of
splitting U-235. You don\'t transmute loads of U-238 in the process,
so it may be somewhat less dangerous, but it isn\'t remotely safe.

You need to read up on how this all works.

(Note that you can also make uranium-powered facilities safer and more
efficient than they are today, by using higher temperatures and molten
salts to get much more of the power out of the same fuel. But thorium
is better still.)

TMSR\'s are walk-away safe.

Until they aren\'t.

What a silly thing to say.

Everybody says that stuff is \"walk-away safe\" until some
unanticipated problem comes up

A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten
salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators.
The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
over.

If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have
a way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
remaining frozen but broke everything else!

If it blocked the drain path, melting the plug wouldn\'t serve any
useful purpose.

This isn\'t rocket science. (There are other aspects that are
technically and scientifically challenging, but this is not.) We know
how powerful earthquakes can get. making a fundament and catch bowl
that will survive the biggest feasible earthquake is simply a matter of
spending enough money on the problem - and it\'s not a lot of money in
the total budget.

Of course, now you are going to tell us that it won\'t survive a
dinosaur-killing meteor strike.

That\'s the point of this design it is \"fail safe\" - lots of things
must be actively running in order for the fission to continue.
That is not the case with uranium.

Since it depends on splitting U-233 rather than U-235, this isn\'t
entirely obvious.

And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put
the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get
flooded.

That\'s one lesson. Each new disaster teaches us another.

We are in the middle of a disaster. Wind and solar power is reducing it
a little, but not enough.

 

[server]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9

Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html

But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount

of energy that is produced.\"

I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"

energy?


Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


Jeroen Belleman


\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse

mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?




It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,

sorry.

Jeroen Belleman

Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn\'t take a lot to
improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
to cook and not freeze to death.

Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.
That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
70% of \'trickety there is already nuclear.

Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they\'ve tried
to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they
will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
Look up Euratom too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

\'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

I know some bomb boys. That\'s preposterous.

Harry said \"There are so many safeguards, it\'s surprising that they
can go off at all.\"



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:36:29 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

On 24/02/2022 07:40, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje
wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of
poverty, the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn\'t take
a lot to improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water,
enough heat to cook and not freeze to death.

Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative
experiment.
That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
70% of \'trickety there is already nuclear.

Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they\'ve
tried to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a
decade and many billions over budget. I guess if they keep building
plants like those they will end up a third world country and we will
have to send them aid.

I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in France,
but they get over 70% of their electricity from nuclear power, and are a
big exporter of electricity. They must be doing /something/ right.

I believe we have more reactors in the US than France has. Here we find new reactors are horribly expensive and impossible to build in anything remotely like a schedule. France has the same problems. The fact that you are ignorant of this after having been discussed here many times speaks volumes.. How many reactors were built in the 70s and 80s is irrelevant at this point. Surely you must understand that, n\'est-ce pas?

Only Germany closed some nuclear plants because of fear and US
pressure ( fear of Germany making a bomb?) and used Fuckupshima
fear to get the masses to vote for it.

Now with US sabotaging northstream 2 gas to Europe and poisoning
their own people by fracking and selling it to Europe it (US)
self-destructs automatically.

How does Northstream 2 have anything to do with the US. I thought
that was the Germans who are killing the deal because of the invasion
of the Ukraine?

The US has been against Northstream 2 since its inception. Russia\'s
export of gas to Europe is a significant source of income for Russia -
of course the USA has always been against it. Germany has resisted this
American pressure, however - since they stupidly closed their nuclear
power plants they have had little choice but to buy Russian gas. They
are now pausing (but not irrevocably killing) the Northstream 2 project
because of Russia\'s actions in Ukraine.

Yes, this is not about the US.

Add a nutcase president who now blames US inflation on Russia and
his low IQ followers buying that and look at the \'size\' of the land
they stole from the native Americans

Which nutcase President are you referring to exactly? Saying
\"nutcase\" doesn\'t narrow it down so much.



you can expect a coordinated preemtive nuclear attack from the rest
of the world. I am not sure such a scenario can now be excluded. If
you do the maaz that is. Us neural nets .. AI deployed.. Maybe that
vulcano in that national park wants a word to say too. Yea man,

You truly are strange, dude!

Indeed!

Are you impersonating Teal\'c of Chulak?

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[server]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 04:34:48 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
wrote:

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 11:27:05 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com
wrote:

[...]

Fusion is Fraud

It is clear fusion is too expensive for commercial use and will
never power cities. The complexity of ITER is a good illustration of
this. Sure, given enough money, you will eventually make it work, but it
will never be commercially practical, especially with the plummeting cost
of renewable sources like solar and wind.

The tokamak versions don\'t look promising, except as giant money
sinks. Some other form of fusion might be practical.

Fantastic breakthroughs are announced regularly. Stock shares increase in
value, which are then sold off at huge profit. Nothing more is heard of the
breakthrough, until a new breakthrough is announced. The cycle repeats.

This is the classical pump and dump scheme.

Fission is sensible but scares people.

True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don\'t apply to Thorium
Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot melt down. They
operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste products are
commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

TMSR\'s are walk-away safe. A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of
power. The molten salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon
moderators. The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
over.

We have lots of cheap clean natural gas. Lots of coal but it\'s fairly
nasty.

Fossile fuels produce CO2.

Excellent. We need more.



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 4:22:43 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


Fission is sensible but scares people.
True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don\'t apply to
Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and cannot
melt down.

But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you will
find out the hard way. Melting isn\'t the problem - producing heat
that you can\'t get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because the
diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant got
flooded and stopped working.

Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to avoid
a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have a design
that can\'t melt, you don\'t have the same kind of problem. With a TMSR,
even the worst combination of failures does not result in an explosion
or the release of radioactive elements.

There are some other technical challenges with TMSR\'s - no one is
claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications will
be found as the current batch of experimental and research work
continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current uranium
reactors (which are themselves much safer than older plants, such as
Fukushima).
They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode. The waste
products are commercially valuable, such as xenon, zirconium,
neodymium and molebdenum.

Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you have
with a regular nuclear reactor.

No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far less
problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium reactor. (That
doesn\'t mean that getting useful metals out of it is necessarily easy or
cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of the waste compared to
conventional reactors.
Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture to
Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it can
undergo nuclear fission.
Yes, that\'s the point - that\'s what makes it safe.

TMSR\'s are walk-away safe.

Until they aren\'t.
What a silly thing to say.

A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten salt
drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators. The
nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is over.

If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have a
way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
remaining frozen but broke everything else! That\'s the point of this
design it is \"fail safe\" - lots of things must be actively running in
order for the fusion to continue. That is not the case with uranium.

And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put the
critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get flooded.

TMSRs may not have the problem of meltdown, but that has never been the biggest problem with nuclear power. The real problem, the one that so seldom gets adequately addressed is the waste. A TMSR produces less waste, but as Bill is quick to point out, that is not really a solution, there\'s still significant waste.

I find it amusing that one of the selling points of the small, modular reactors is that they are designed to not be refueled. Rather they run for 30 years and then are left, buried in the ground where they were installed. Yeah, like that\'s not going to raise any objections from the neighborhood.

Nuclear is a problem that simply doesn\'t have good solutions. None. We are better off just facing up to that fact and moving on.

Renewables are still new. We have lots and lots of room for improvement with them. I think that solution space should be adequately explored.

Living in Puerto Rico, I\'ve seen a number of wind turbines. The island has a breeze nearly all the time, so wind power is a pretty good solution. Some of the wind turbines were disabled by Maria. Now, four years later, few of them have been fixed. There are some very large machines along the southern coast near Ponce that are working, not sure if they were there during Maria or not. Clearly, there is less faith in wind power, or less money for investment. It\'s a shame as they need new, inexpensive sources of energy on the island.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 5:32:59 AM UTC-5, Jeff Layman wrote:

On 24/02/2022 08:36, David Brown wrote:

I have no idea who builds/built the nuclear power stations in France,
EDF, who are partially owned by the French government.

They are currently building a nuclear power station in the UK (Hinkley
C; it will have two reactors), and will probably build another here -
Sizewell C, which will also have two reactors. Each is planned to
provide power for 6 million homes.

The Hinkley facility and a couple of others EDF is building are horribly late and very over budget. The same problem that drove Westinghouse nuclear into bankruptcy.

If a contractor had screwed up so badly on the last several jobs they did in your neighborhood, would you give them a deposit on an addition to your home? Instead of two months, they took two years? Instead of costing $10,000 they ended up costing $100,000? These are only slight exaggerations.

In the UK, the investors were on the hook for the bill at Hinkley. They passed a new law that allows them to pass the overruns to the rate payers on all future nuclear projects. Otherwise the investors won\'t invest. That\'s the real death blow to nuclear. It\'s just too damn expensive with renewables coming down in price so much. You can expect your electric rates to go up in the UK if they build another nuclear plant.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 10:09:38 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:

On 24/02/2022 12:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:22:43 PM UTC+11, David Brown
wrote:
On 24/02/2022 06:40, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 3:34:58 PM UTC+11, Mike Monett
wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:


Fission is sensible but scares people.

True, but TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima meltdowns don\'t apply to
Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. They are already molten and
cannot melt down.

But they can have other problems. Build enough of them and you
will find out the hard way. Melting isn\'t the problem - producing
heat that you can\'t get rid of is - and Fukushima failed because
the diesel engines that should have been circulating the coolant
got flooded and stopped working.

Fukushima failed because the circulating coolant was necessary to
avoid a meltdown and the following hydrogen explosions. If you have
a design that can\'t melt, you don\'t have the same kind of problem.

There are others.

With a TMSR, even the worst combination of failures does not result
in an explosion or the release of radioactive elements.

It might not result in an explosion, but if the molten salt get hot
enough to melt it\'s container, the radioactive elements will escape.

And there really isn\'t an upper limit to the temperatures you can get
get if a nuclear reactor runs away - volatilise the molten salts and
it could look very like an explosion.
Thorium itself cannot sustain a fission reaction. As you noted
yourself, it needs a slow neutron to turn it into uranium, which can
then decay. If it is spread out enough, there is no way that enough
neutrons from decaying uranium can activate enough thorium to end up
sustaining a reaction. Drop the molten thorium salt into a container
(it\'s /not/ hard to make a container that will withstand far higher
temperatures than those in the reactor, and also withstand an earthquake
- re-enforced concrete will be fine). Gravity will spread the splat,
and the reaction stops.

You have a bit of cleaning up to do, scraping up the solidified and
somewhat radioactive mess. But it is all contained and safe, and you
can probably just melt it again and put it back in once you are running
again.

LOL! Yes, you won\'t have a run away reactor, but you won\'t have a reactor anymore. The solidified salt will still be very radioactive and there\'s no way you are going to recover that reactor. The safety valve is a one time thing, like ejecting from a fighter jet. You won\'t be recovering the facility. Don\'t try to fool me even if you can fool yourself.

There are some other technical challenges with TMSR\'s - no one is
claiming they are /easy/ to make. And no doubt more complications
will be found as the current batch of experimental and research
work continues. But they are inherently vastly safer than current
uranium reactors (which are themselves much safer than older
plants, such as Fukushima).

They may be safer, but they aren\'t all that safe.The worst case
nuclear accident is somebody dropping an atomic bomb on a reactor,
and a thorium reactor would offer much the same mass of radioactive
matrerial to be dispersed.
You are /really/ scraping the barrel here. You think that if you drop
an atomic bomb on the reactor, it\'s the reactor that\'s the problem?
Seriously?

Most of what is in the reactor is /thorium/. It\'s a safe metal - it\'s
found all over the place in rocks. Scattering thorium around the site
of a nuclear bomb detonation is not going to make the slightest difference.

Most, other than the various radionuclides.

Sure, TMSR are not /completely/ safe. Nor is anything else in this
world. But are you going to tell us how dangerous hydroelectric power
is, since a big enough bomb will burst the damn?

This is a side issue. The real problem is the radioactive waste... and the cost. So far, no one has operated a TMSR and so we don\'t know the cost of construction or operation.

They operate at atmospheric pressure and cannot explode.The
waste products are commercially valuable, such as xenon,
zirconium, neodymium and molebdenum.

Some of them are. Getting them out of the radioactive part of the
waste and getting rid of that is much the same problem that you
have with a regular nuclear reactor.

No, it is not. The waste from a molten salt thorium reactor is far
less problematic than the waste from a conventional uranium
reactor. (That doesn\'t mean that getting useful metals out of it is
necessarily easy or cost-effective.) And you only have about 1% of
the waste compared to conventional reactors.

In fact it is equally problematic, but there is less of it.
No, it is not. Please read up about this. Vastly more of the potential
nuclear energy is used in TMSR reactors than conventional uranium
reactors (perhaps because they are designed for that purpose, whereas
conventional reactors were designed to make bomb-grade uranium and
plutonium with electricity as a bonus side-effect). The waste isotopes
do not have anything like the dangerous lifespans of the uranium reactor
waste - we are talking 100 years rather than 10,000 years.
We still
haven\'t got any kind of longer term repository for radioactive waste
and we\'ve been generating it for about eighty years now. It may be a
small problem, but like the very small baby, it isn\'t one that you
can ignore.

The world has done so quite happily so far. And it\'s a far more
tractable problem than dealing with all the environmental poison and
damage that comes from the fossil fuel industry. A typical coal-fired
power station leaks more radioactive waste than a conventional nuclear
power station, including its waste storage.

That seems a specious argument. The radioactive waste statement is meaningless. The hazard in radioactive waste is in the potential for accidents or use as weapons and the cost of the long term storage.

Thorium-232 has to be transmuted into U-233 (by neutron capture
to Thorium-233 and beta decays through Pa-233 to U-233) before it
can undergo nuclear fission.

Yes, that\'s the point - that\'s what makes it safe.

But what you end up with is just as dangerous as the products of
splitting U-235. You don\'t transmute loads of U-238 in the process,
so it may be somewhat less dangerous, but it isn\'t remotely safe.

You need to read up on how this all works.

(Note that you can also make uranium-powered facilities safer and more
efficient than they are today, by using higher temperatures and molten
salts to get much more of the power out of the same fuel. But thorium
is better still.)

Being stabbed in the gut is better than being shot in the head. Not a meaningful statement.

TMSR\'s are walk-away safe.

Until they aren\'t.

What a silly thing to say.

Everybody says that stuff is \"walk-away safe\" until some
unanticipated problem comes up

A freeze plug melts in the event of loss of power. The molten
salt drains into storage tanks, which lack carbon moderators.
The nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools and the event is
over.

If everything works the way to was supposed to. Earthquakes have
a way of preventing that - see Fukushima.

It would be a strange kind of earthquake that resulted in the plug
remaining frozen but broke everything else!

If it blocked the drain path, melting the plug wouldn\'t serve any
useful purpose.

This isn\'t rocket science. (There are other aspects that are
technically and scientifically challenging, but this is not.) We know
how powerful earthquakes can get. making a fundament and catch bowl
that will survive the biggest feasible earthquake is simply a matter of
spending enough money on the problem - and it\'s not a lot of money in
the total budget.

No, we don\'t. The earthquake that shut down the two reactors at North Anna was twice as powerful as the plant was designed to handle. Of course, even the design goal was higher than the largest quake expected. The result was the diesel generators firing up to power the circulating pumps, but one of the generators failed. When they researched why, the found the procedure for head gasket installation was incorrect. This was a single point of failure because this procedure was used on all the generators and they all could have failed.

The tsunami that killed Fukushima was larger than anything they expected and the additional buffer.

These are such obvious failures in the concept of \"safe\" nuclear power that it is surprising everyone didn\'t respond like Germany did.

Of course, now you are going to tell us that it won\'t survive a
dinosaur-killing meteor strike.
That\'s the point of this design it is \"fail safe\" - lots of things
must be actively running in order for the fission to continue.
That is not the case with uranium.

Since it depends on splitting U-233 rather than U-235, this isn\'t
entirely obvious.

And I would hope that people have learned from Fukushima not to put
the critical safety equipment in the spot most likely to get
flooded.

That\'s one lesson. Each new disaster teaches us another.

We are in the middle of a disaster. Wind and solar power is reducing it
a little, but not enough.

So we can\'t use more wind, solar and hydro? Last time I checked that was the plan.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Jan Panteltje]

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:17:29 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<678f1hlkgem87advn3icb1kuskua3ulejm@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9

Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html

But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount

of energy that is produced.\"

I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"

energy?


Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


Jeroen Belleman


\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse

mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?




It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,

sorry.

Jeroen Belleman

Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn\'t take a lot to
improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
to cook and not freeze to death.

Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.
That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
70% of \'trickety there is already nuclear.

Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they\'ve tried
to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they
will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
Look up Euratom too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

\'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

I know some bomb boys. That\'s preposterous.

Harry said \"There are so many safeguards, it\'s surprising that they
can go off at all.\"

My boss back a long time ago told me he knew one of those guys working
on the US bomb here, the guy told him he dropped a PCB board or something in it
while doing maintenance and never understood why it did not go off...

 

[server]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 16:53:00 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 07:17:29 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
678f1hlkgem87advn3icb1kuskua3ulejm@4ax.com>:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 11:03:48 GMT, Jan Panteltje
pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 22:40:09 -0800 (PST)) it happened Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
b80bd97d-0c86-4b30-94f0-a92e5f9d8765n@googlegroups.com>:

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:06:06 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
On a sunny day (Wed, 23 Feb 2022 19:02:27 -0800) it happened
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
p1td1hpe3sotvri1h...@4ax.com>:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:53:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

On 2022-02-23 16:40, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 10:08:22 +0100, Jeroen Belleman
jer...@nospam.please> wrote:

Jeff Layman wrote:
On 22/02/2022 23:03, Dean Hoffman wrote:
Maybe someone here will be interested.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04301-9

Well, it\'s been mooted for around 70 years. Hopefully it is nearer to

reality:
https://phys.org/news/2022-02-scientists-britain-fusion-energy.html

But even there note \"The latest results use about three times the amount

of energy that is produced.\"

I wonder, though, has anyone considered the ramifications of \"endless\"

energy?


Any resource perceived as plenty will get wasted until it no longer is.


Jeroen Belleman


\"wasted until it no longer is\" implies a nonlinear, absolute collapse

mechanism. How would perceived cheap or free energy kill all
production of energy?




It gets wasted until it no longer is plenty. Maybe my syntax was off,

sorry.

Jeroen Belleman

Energy, specifically electricity, is the great path out of poverty,
the ultimate civilizing force. It actually doesn\'t take a lot to
improve lives enormously. Lighting, clean running water, enough heat
to cook and not freeze to death.

Europe is determined to reinforce that idea, by a negative experiment.
That is complete bollox, France just annouced more nuclear plants
70% of \'trickety there is already nuclear.

Really? Are they building them theirselves? The other nukes they\'ve tried
to build have been a total disaster with schedule delays of a decade and many
billions over budget. I guess if they keep building plants like those they
will end up a third world country and we will have to send them aid.

France has nukes and tested those and has nuclear submarines.
Look up Euratom too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Atomic_Energy_Community

\'merricans have fallen so far behind, I have read the launch codes for the ICBMs are all zeros
as in a stress situation the poor soldiers cannot remember more complex numbers.

I know some bomb boys. That\'s preposterous.

Harry said \"There are so many safeguards, it\'s surprising that they
can go off at all.\"

My boss back a long time ago told me he knew one of those guys working
on the US bomb here, the guy told him he dropped a PCB board or something in it
while doing maintenance and never understood why it did not go off...

It\'s very complex to set off an implosion bomb. Nanoseconds matter.

The neutron initiators are independently interlocked. If they don\'t
work, you get a fizzle.

I don\'t think a nuke has ever detonated accidentally. Lots of gadgets
have failed to go.

Ted Taylor designed a bomb that absolutely failed to work.

https://www.amazon.com/Curve-Binding-Energy-Alarming-Theodore/dp/0374515980



--

I yam what I yam - Popeye