M
Mike Monett
Guest
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
[...]
We don\'t need the temperature rise.
[...]
We don\'t need the temperature rise.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 11:54:52 AM UTC-5, Jan Panteltje wrote:
I think the key part of that is \"didn\'t understand\".
--
Rick C.
+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
I think the key part of that is \"didn\'t understand\".
--
Rick C.
+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
L
Lasse Langwadt Christensen
Guest
torsdag den 24. februar 2022 kl. 18.30.51 UTC+1 skrev jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1961_Goldsboro_B-52_crash
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:19:06 AM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
> 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.
But, that\'s not true; nuclear sub contracts all include new reactors, and haven\'t had years-long
holdups at all. The problems might be soluble, with newer-than-1980 designs, but the
entrenched idea that \'impossible to build\' applies to anything nuclear, is a killer for anything
that requires a long-term bond issue.
Until someone builds and operates a few modern reactors for electricity production, we don\'t
KNOW how expensive they are, or how well they work.
> 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.
But, that\'s not true; nuclear sub contracts all include new reactors, and haven\'t had years-long
holdups at all. The problems might be soluble, with newer-than-1980 designs, but the
entrenched idea that \'impossible to build\' applies to anything nuclear, is a killer for anything
that requires a long-term bond issue.
Until someone builds and operates a few modern reactors for electricity production, we don\'t
KNOW how expensive they are, or how well they work.
D
David Brown
Guest
On 24/02/2022 16:18, Rick C wrote:
France is second only to the USA in nuclear power generated - as a
proportion of its power, it has more than any other country.
I agree that new reactors always seem to cost far more and take far
longer to build than planned - I have no idea how it is possible to get
things wrong so often. But it does not mean building new plants is the
wrong thing to do.
Electricity prices in Europe have gone through the roof in recent times.
They have doubled in the last year - with peak prices getting several
times that. Europe simply doesn\'t make enough electricity, and wind
farms will not cover the needs. There isn\'t enough space for big enough
wind parks or solar power generation. Europe is going to have to build
nuclear power stations, and with the price of electricity, they will be
cost-effective.
Well, no - but that won\'t stop the US having an opinion and trying to
influence it! (I\'m not condemning the US for that - politics is a
global game.)
No, at least not intentionally. I haven\'t followed Stargate much.
(It\'s probably a series I would watch, if it happens to turn up on our
TV or Netflix. But there isn\'t time to watch everything.)
France is second only to the USA in nuclear power generated - as a
proportion of its power, it has more than any other country.
I agree that new reactors always seem to cost far more and take far
longer to build than planned - I have no idea how it is possible to get
things wrong so often. But it does not mean building new plants is the
wrong thing to do.
Electricity prices in Europe have gone through the roof in recent times.
They have doubled in the last year - with peak prices getting several
times that. Europe simply doesn\'t make enough electricity, and wind
farms will not cover the needs. There isn\'t enough space for big enough
wind parks or solar power generation. Europe is going to have to build
nuclear power stations, and with the price of electricity, they will be
cost-effective.
Well, no - but that won\'t stop the US having an opinion and trying to
influence it! (I\'m not condemning the US for that - politics is a
global game.)
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?
No, at least not intentionally. I haven\'t followed Stargate much.
(It\'s probably a series I would watch, if it happens to turn up on our
TV or Netflix. But there isn\'t time to watch everything.)
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:13:31 PM UTC-5, whit3rd wrote:
That is a pointless comparison. I don\'t concede that Naval contracts don\'t overrun or come in late. It\'s simply a false comparison.
WTF are you talking about? How about the vastly over budget and schedules so bungled, they can\'t even predict if it will be compete in three months or six? Vogtle\'s two reactors are six years late and $16 billion OVER the original number of $14 billion. A similar project in South Carolina failed, ending up with numerous entities in bankruptcy or suffering massive losses.. Lather, rinse, repeat for the various projects EDF is behind.
Unless by \"modern\" you mean a reactor design that has never been built or approved. Yeah, there are lots of those. Too many to count. Why don\'t we build one of each, just as a test?
--
Rick C.
+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
That is a pointless comparison. I don\'t concede that Naval contracts don\'t overrun or come in late. It\'s simply a false comparison.
WTF are you talking about? How about the vastly over budget and schedules so bungled, they can\'t even predict if it will be compete in three months or six? Vogtle\'s two reactors are six years late and $16 billion OVER the original number of $14 billion. A similar project in South Carolina failed, ending up with numerous entities in bankruptcy or suffering massive losses.. Lather, rinse, repeat for the various projects EDF is behind.
Unless by \"modern\" you mean a reactor design that has never been built or approved. Yeah, there are lots of those. Too many to count. Why don\'t we build one of each, just as a test?
--
Rick C.
+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
W
whit3rd
Guest
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 8:11:18 AM UTC-8, gnuarm.del...@gmail.com wrote:
It WASN\'T a spot likely to get flooded; a magnitude-9 quake and tens of thousands of folk dead
by the tsunami were the major effects of that disaster, the nuclear cleanup was a tiny little
blip on the total. A simple design feature allows standard fire-truck pumps to be pressed
into service in emergency, nowadays; that fault has been engineered away.
It WASN\'T a spot likely to get flooded; a magnitude-9 quake and tens of thousands of folk dead
by the tsunami were the major effects of that disaster, the nuclear cleanup was a tiny little
blip on the total. A simple design feature allows standard fire-truck pumps to be pressed
into service in emergency, nowadays; that fault has been engineered away.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 1:19:42 PM UTC-5, David Brown wrote:
Which means nothing.
It means exactly that! This is why no one will attempt a nuclear construction project without government loan guarantees. If the people making money on the projects don\'t believe it can be pulled off, why should we?
The idea of there not being enough space for renewable power generation is pretty much BS. Sorry, but you are just making up stuff now.
Everyone has opinions. Whatever.
That was his catch phrase. He was the strong silent type, so his universal reply was a deep, resonating, \"Indeed.\" I use it myself a lot when I want to reply without saying anything.
--
Rick C.
++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Which means nothing.
It means exactly that! This is why no one will attempt a nuclear construction project without government loan guarantees. If the people making money on the projects don\'t believe it can be pulled off, why should we?
The idea of there not being enough space for renewable power generation is pretty much BS. Sorry, but you are just making up stuff now.
Everyone has opinions. Whatever.
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?
No, at least not intentionally. I haven\'t followed Stargate much.
(It\'s probably a series I would watch, if it happens to turn up on our
TV or Netflix. But there isn\'t time to watch everything.)
That was his catch phrase. He was the strong silent type, so his universal reply was a deep, resonating, \"Indeed.\" I use it myself a lot when I want to reply without saying anything.
--
Rick C.
++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 24/02/22 18:13, whit3rd wrote:
This is progressing in the UK with small modular reactors (SMRs).
From:
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/02/could-nuclear-power-help-get-us-to-net-zero/
Kwarteng announced £210m in government funding for SMR development in November.
This is to be backed by £250m in private investment from a consortium led by
experienced reactor builder Rolls-Royce.
As the name suggests, SMRs are factory-built and then transported to and
assembled on existing sites or others that can be made suitable without massive
civil engineering. The goal is to require foundations that are only 20-30 per
cent of those for a Hinkley-like build, with much of the work going into
creating an aseismic bearing for safety and so that the reactor does not require
design changes.
Another important difference with SMRs is capacity. Hinkley C and Sizewell C are
3,200MWe-capacity projects. The SMRs proposed by Rolls-Royce are in the
220-440MWe range, equivalent to 150 wind turbines or an older coal-fired station.
Rolls-Royceâs SMR concept is based on process innovation. Its SMRs will use
existing PWR technology with progressive cost savings achieved through
replication. The consortium is then looking to make deployments much more
quickly by telescoping a historically linear set of approvals processes for
technology, safety, and location into one that conducts all three simultaneously.
This is progressing in the UK with small modular reactors (SMRs).
From:
https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2022/02/could-nuclear-power-help-get-us-to-net-zero/
Kwarteng announced £210m in government funding for SMR development in November.
This is to be backed by £250m in private investment from a consortium led by
experienced reactor builder Rolls-Royce.
As the name suggests, SMRs are factory-built and then transported to and
assembled on existing sites or others that can be made suitable without massive
civil engineering. The goal is to require foundations that are only 20-30 per
cent of those for a Hinkley-like build, with much of the work going into
creating an aseismic bearing for safety and so that the reactor does not require
design changes.
Another important difference with SMRs is capacity. Hinkley C and Sizewell C are
3,200MWe-capacity projects. The SMRs proposed by Rolls-Royce are in the
220-440MWe range, equivalent to 150 wind turbines or an older coal-fired station.
Rolls-Royceâs SMR concept is based on process innovation. Its SMRs will use
existing PWR technology with progressive cost savings achieved through
replication. The consortium is then looking to make deployments much more
quickly by telescoping a historically linear set of approvals processes for
technology, safety, and location into one that conducts all three simultaneously.
D
David Brown
Guest
On 24/02/2022 19:25, whit3rd wrote:
Yes, the biggest problem (and by far the biggest cause of death) at the
Fukushima nuclear plant was the panic and overreaction. And even that
was small compared to the \"conventional\" damage of the earthquake and
tsunami.
But it was silly to put the diesel generators so low down that they were
flooded. Supporting external fire engine pumps as a backup sounds like
a good idea.
Yes, the biggest problem (and by far the biggest cause of death) at the
Fukushima nuclear plant was the panic and overreaction. And even that
was small compared to the \"conventional\" damage of the earthquake and
tsunami.
But it was silly to put the diesel generators so low down that they were
flooded. Supporting external fire engine pumps as a backup sounds like
a good idea.
J
Jan Panteltje
Guest
On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:30:36 -0800) it happened
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<koff1h9mfs694dbmp1t8fl0maqep16ogpq@4ax.com>:
I have not read that book, but for example making a dirty nuclear bomb is not that hard.
You can pollute a large area with a few dollars worth..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahnhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
My uncle had a jewel store, and was also repairing and selling watches with radium covered hands.
One day all those watches had to be taken out and could no longer be sold due to the radioactivity
of those watch-hands.
I had one as a present...
Once I found a lot of green glassware in the attic at my parents home, mother told me
I used to drink from it as a small kid, until somebody told her that uranium glass was dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_glass
We had light switches with radium knobs that lighted green.
Radiation.. we had Chernobyl fallout here too.
The air filters from the aircos where I worked had to be replaced because those were hot on the Geiger counter.
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
<koff1h9mfs694dbmp1t8fl0maqep16ogpq@4ax.com>:
I have not read that book, but for example making a dirty nuclear bomb is not that hard.
You can pollute a large area with a few dollars worth..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahnhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
My uncle had a jewel store, and was also repairing and selling watches with radium covered hands.
One day all those watches had to be taken out and could no longer be sold due to the radioactivity
of those watch-hands.
I had one as a present...
Once I found a lot of green glassware in the attic at my parents home, mother told me
I used to drink from it as a small kid, until somebody told her that uranium glass was dangerous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_glass
We had light switches with radium knobs that lighted green.
Radiation.. we had Chernobyl fallout here too.
The air filters from the aircos where I worked had to be replaced because those were hot on the Geiger counter.
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 24/02/22 15:17, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
Apparently SAC had that worry too.
From
http://web.archive.org/web/20120511191600/http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm
The Strategic Air Command (SAC) in Omaha quietly decided to set the âlocksâ to
all zeros in order to circumvent this safeguard. During the early to mid-1970s,
during my stint as a Minuteman launch officer, they still had not been changed.
Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the
locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other
than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel. SAC remained far less
concerned about unauthorized launches than about the potential of these
safeguards to interfere with the implementation of wartime launch orders. And so
the âsecret unlock codeâ during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War
remained constant at OOOOOOOO.
After leaving the Air Force in 1974, I pressed the service, initially by letters
addressed to it and then through congressional intermediaries, to consider a
range of terrorist scenarios in which these locks could serve as crucial
barriers against the unauthorized seizure of launch control over Minuteman
missiles. In 1977, I co-authored (with Garry Brewer) an article (click here to
view) entitled âThe Terrorist Threat to World Nuclear Programsâ in which I laid
out the case for taking this threat more seriously and suggesting remedial
measures including, first and foremost, activating those McNamara locks that
apparently he and presidents presumed had already been activated.
The locks were activated in 1977.
Apparently SAC had that worry too.
From
http://web.archive.org/web/20120511191600/http://www.cdi.org/blair/permissive-action-links.cfm
The Strategic Air Command (SAC) in Omaha quietly decided to set the âlocksâ to
all zeros in order to circumvent this safeguard. During the early to mid-1970s,
during my stint as a Minuteman launch officer, they still had not been changed.
Our launch checklist in fact instructed us, the firing crew, to double-check the
locking panel in our underground launch bunker to ensure that no digits other
than zero had been inadvertently dialed into the panel. SAC remained far less
concerned about unauthorized launches than about the potential of these
safeguards to interfere with the implementation of wartime launch orders. And so
the âsecret unlock codeâ during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War
remained constant at OOOOOOOO.
After leaving the Air Force in 1974, I pressed the service, initially by letters
addressed to it and then through congressional intermediaries, to consider a
range of terrorist scenarios in which these locks could serve as crucial
barriers against the unauthorized seizure of launch control over Minuteman
missiles. In 1977, I co-authored (with Garry Brewer) an article (click here to
view) entitled âThe Terrorist Threat to World Nuclear Programsâ in which I laid
out the case for taking this threat more seriously and suggesting remedial
measures including, first and foremost, activating those McNamara locks that
apparently he and presidents presumed had already been activated.
The locks were activated in 1977.
J
Jan Panteltje
Guest
On a sunny day (Thu, 24 Feb 2022 18:36:54 +0000) it happened Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in <sv8j86$he$1@dont-email.me>:
The Russians have ships with smsll nuclear reactors that they send
to cites along the coast to power and heat those:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in <sv8j86$he$1@dont-email.me>:
The Russians have ships with smsll nuclear reactors that they send
to cites along the coast to power and heat those:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 18:43:19 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ted says that he hated and was morally repulsed by nuclear weapons,
except that they were so much fun to design.
--
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ted says that he hated and was morally repulsed by nuclear weapons,
except that they were so much fun to design.
--
If a man will begin with certainties, he shall end with doubts,
but if he will be content to begin with doubts he shall end in certainties.
Francis Bacon
F
Flyguy
Guest
On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 3:27:16 AM UTC-8, Mike Monett wrote:
Hi Mike,
Thanks for this excellent summary of the issues regarding fusion energy. Contrary to what that idiot SNIPPERMAN says, duplicating the Sun in a fusion reactor is a fool\'s errand. Thorium molten salt reactors should get ALL of the R&D money that is being wasted on fusion.
Hi Mike,
Thanks for this excellent summary of the issues regarding fusion energy. Contrary to what that idiot SNIPPERMAN says, duplicating the Sun in a fusion reactor is a fool\'s errand. Thorium molten salt reactors should get ALL of the R&D money that is being wasted on fusion.
J
John Walliker
Guest
On Thursday, 24 February 2022 at 18:45:18 UTC, Jan Panteltje wrote:
The air filters in a large hospital in London were quite active a few days after Chernobyl. I
knew the radiation protection physicist who decided to check them. It was mostly iodine
adsorbed onto fine soil particles. The activity was such that the filters had to be disposed
of as radioactive waste.
John
The air filters in a large hospital in London were quite active a few days after Chernobyl. I
knew the radiation protection physicist who decided to check them. It was mostly iodine
adsorbed onto fine soil particles. The activity was such that the filters had to be disposed
of as radioactive waste.
John
J
John Walliker
Guest
On Thursday, 24 February 2022 at 18:03:15 UTC, lang...@fonz.dk wrote:
They can make quite a mess though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash
John
They can make quite a mess though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Palomares_B-52_crash
John
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 2:09:38 AM UTC+11, David Brown wrote:
But you have to have enough U-233 in your thorium fuel to generate the heat and the neutrons to keep the process running. Normally you take out the heat that you need - that\'s what the reactor is there to generate. Stopping it generating that heat when you can\'t take it out is the problem.
>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.
Sounds fine. Now think of all the ways that it might not work, and remember that mother nature has a more or less infinite capacity to come up with more.
> 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.
If it all works as you expected.
It\'s a possible scenario. I didn\'t invent it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack
A nuclear reactor works by splitting the uranium nucleus into two or more lighter nuclei.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
There are lots of possible products and quite a few of them are radioactive. They aren\'t safe. If a thorium reactor had a mechanism for electroplating them out of the molten salt on a continuous basis there might not be all that much nasty stuff there at any one time, but I haven\'t heard of any such scheme.
There was a film about it, called \"The Dambusters\".
This is regularly claimed by proponents of thorium reactors. It doesn\'t seem to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium
can be expected to be one of the fission products. Technetium, with atomic number Z = 43, is the lowest-numbered element in the periodic table for which all isotopes are radioactive, so it is the easy one to point to.It\'s most stable radioactive isotopes are technetium-97 with a half-life of 4.21 million years,technetium-98 with 4.2 million years, and technetium-99 with 211,100 years.
The fission of a gram of uranium-235 in nuclear reactors yields 27 mg of technetium-99, Other fissile isotopes produce similar yields of technetium, such as 22mg from one gram of uranium-233.
But unwisely.
> 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.
We aren\'t dealing all that well with damage done and still being done by the fossil fuel industry. That problem isn\'t tractable either.
I have done. You clearly haven\'t.
But still insanely dangerous.
Of course when you\'ve spent the money, you\'ve got to wait for that earthquake to find out that you didn\'t spend the money in quite the right way.
> Of course, now you are going to tell us that it won\'t survive a dinosaur-killing meteor strike.
Or somebody dropping a nuclear bomb on it.
They are reducing it at a rate determined by our capacity to build more solar cell farms and windfarms. We\'ve got economies of scale on solar cells, and we are starting to get them on windfarms.
It now a matter of keeping on turning the handle (and installing enough grid storage of various sorts to cover nights and windless days).
Deciding to go nuclear with novel thorium reactors isn\'t going to solve the problem faster - it\'s just going to divert investment away from an approach which is clearly working and should get us where we need to be before global warming has wrecked our capacity to do anything on that kind of scale.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
But you have to have enough U-233 in your thorium fuel to generate the heat and the neutrons to keep the process running. Normally you take out the heat that you need - that\'s what the reactor is there to generate. Stopping it generating that heat when you can\'t take it out is the problem.
>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.
Sounds fine. Now think of all the ways that it might not work, and remember that mother nature has a more or less infinite capacity to come up with more.
> 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.
If it all works as you expected.
It\'s a possible scenario. I didn\'t invent it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulnerability_of_nuclear_plants_to_attack
A nuclear reactor works by splitting the uranium nucleus into two or more lighter nuclei.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission
There are lots of possible products and quite a few of them are radioactive. They aren\'t safe. If a thorium reactor had a mechanism for electroplating them out of the molten salt on a continuous basis there might not be all that much nasty stuff there at any one time, but I haven\'t heard of any such scheme.
There was a film about it, called \"The Dambusters\".
This is regularly claimed by proponents of thorium reactors. It doesn\'t seem to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium
can be expected to be one of the fission products. Technetium, with atomic number Z = 43, is the lowest-numbered element in the periodic table for which all isotopes are radioactive, so it is the easy one to point to.It\'s most stable radioactive isotopes are technetium-97 with a half-life of 4.21 million years,technetium-98 with 4.2 million years, and technetium-99 with 211,100 years.
The fission of a gram of uranium-235 in nuclear reactors yields 27 mg of technetium-99, Other fissile isotopes produce similar yields of technetium, such as 22mg from one gram of uranium-233.
But unwisely.
> 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.
We aren\'t dealing all that well with damage done and still being done by the fossil fuel industry. That problem isn\'t tractable either.
I have done. You clearly haven\'t.
But still insanely dangerous.
Of course when you\'ve spent the money, you\'ve got to wait for that earthquake to find out that you didn\'t spend the money in quite the right way.
> Of course, now you are going to tell us that it won\'t survive a dinosaur-killing meteor strike.
Or somebody dropping a nuclear bomb on it.
They are reducing it at a rate determined by our capacity to build more solar cell farms and windfarms. We\'ve got economies of scale on solar cells, and we are starting to get them on windfarms.
It now a matter of keeping on turning the handle (and installing enough grid storage of various sorts to cover nights and windless days).
Deciding to go nuclear with novel thorium reactors isn\'t going to solve the problem faster - it\'s just going to divert investment away from an approach which is clearly working and should get us where we need to be before global warming has wrecked our capacity to do anything on that kind of scale.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
A
Anthony William Sloman
Guest
On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 2:19:56 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
We really don\'t, but the fossil carbon extraction industry likes to deny this, and John Larkin does seem to believe all the nonsense that Anthony Watts serves up on their behalf.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
We really don\'t, but the fossil carbon extraction industry likes to deny this, and John Larkin does seem to believe all the nonsense that Anthony Watts serves up on their behalf.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:30:12 PM UTC-5, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
The first step of the reactions require moderation of the neutrons, using moderators that are only in the reactor. If the fuel overheats it melts a salt plug that allows it to drain into a tank where there is no moderator. The reactions are no longer initiated. The heat is dissipated passively. The reactions die down in a relatively short time. The world is safe for the family.
Do you really not understand this or are you talking about some other problem?
I can\'t think of any. Please advise.
Don\'t invoke the Jurassic Park Dr. Ian Malcolm : \"John, the kind of control you\'re attempting simply is... it\'s not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it\'s that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is.\"
As if failure is inherent.
Same is true for virtually any chemical factory or petroleum plant. Look at the Bhopal disaster. That didn\'t even require a nuke.
With a half life of 200,000 years, would that not be only very slightly radioactive?
I was reading something about wind energy and found that in that area (don\'t recall the details) wind fell off dramatically as a seasonal thing, possibly winter. That is not likely to ever become manageable by building storage.
Most people who complain that grid storage won\'t work aren\'t really looking at much relevant data. But I\'ve never found data that says it can work effectively either.
--
Rick C.
+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
The first step of the reactions require moderation of the neutrons, using moderators that are only in the reactor. If the fuel overheats it melts a salt plug that allows it to drain into a tank where there is no moderator. The reactions are no longer initiated. The heat is dissipated passively. The reactions die down in a relatively short time. The world is safe for the family.
Do you really not understand this or are you talking about some other problem?
I can\'t think of any. Please advise.
Don\'t invoke the Jurassic Park Dr. Ian Malcolm : \"John, the kind of control you\'re attempting simply is... it\'s not possible. If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it\'s that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously, but, uh... well, there it is.\"
As if failure is inherent.
Same is true for virtually any chemical factory or petroleum plant. Look at the Bhopal disaster. That didn\'t even require a nuke.
With a half life of 200,000 years, would that not be only very slightly radioactive?
I was reading something about wind energy and found that in that area (don\'t recall the details) wind fell off dramatically as a seasonal thing, possibly winter. That is not likely to ever become manageable by building storage.
Most people who complain that grid storage won\'t work aren\'t really looking at much relevant data. But I\'ve never found data that says it can work effectively either.
--
Rick C.
+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209