Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: The Spanish Grid Drop-out - recently released information.
Date: Fri, 16 May 2025 06:43:31 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 105
Message-ID: <1005jlu$3ae76$3@dont-email.me>
References: <qtb42kdu0hi53rdatftund6ho5s0hpi0o3@4ax.com>
 <vvuhj7$1it85$1@dont-email.me> <b6lbflxg2q.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <sbi62kp9g79sdbjhj1f64gm29r93v4r5qu@4ax.com> <vvvr5k$1tce4$1@dont-email.me>
 <7kmcflxsfb.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <3lj92kth9m1cjjib8peq04tta6fecer0bv@4ax.com>
 <ed6fflx9t.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <023a2k1v735395t0crgdfq36acujgn24gq@4ax.com>
 <b14ed169-8a1d-5a70-4019-dd6db34285ad@electrooptical.net>
 <s41c2kl8sp0vq3luhk4513ci11les1tpbp@4ax.com>
 <md3c2khl2fmdr6dh3mgok31dgnip7vv19r@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 22:43:43 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b1364c7858883f66cd27867401c59443";
	logging-data="3487974"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19hE++9IC8dUx8wCVefVBVdU5kpXOjAZdU="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kO/LXoZPRUavoRxsha40u/PMHH0=
In-Reply-To: <md3c2khl2fmdr6dh3mgok31dgnip7vv19r@4ax.com>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250515-4, 15/5/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 5777

On 16/05/2025 1:54 am, john larkin wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2025 11:22:42 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, 14 May 2025 19:38:09 -0400, Phil Hobbs
>> <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2025-05-14 17:37, john larkin wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:10:06 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
>>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2025-05-14 19:19, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 13 May 2025 22:28:23 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
>>>>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2025-05-13 18:14, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2025 11:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 13 May 2025 12:57:47 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
>>>>>>>>> <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nukes are great, but not if you tear them down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nukes are remarkably expensive, and depressingly inflexible. Radiation
>>>>>>>> damage to the structure means that you do have to tear them down after a
>>>>>>>> few decades of use, and the radioactive waste starts off very
>>>>>>>> radioactive, and the longer-lived isotopes have to be managed for a few
>>>>>>>> hundred thousand years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And the investors building the stations do not consider the cost of
>>>>>>> managing the waste for centuries. They leave that part to the
>>>>>>> government. In Spain, we don't have any long term nuclear waste storage.
>>>>>>> I think we rent storage in France, so the waste has to be transported
>>>>>>> there. We have some storage at each station, a large water pool.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The best thing to do with used fuel rods is reprocess them into more
>>>>>> fuel.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something that is expensive and not every country can do.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of very remote places in the world could do that. And we'd
>>>> get lots of fun isotopes too. Can't leave hot rods in a zillion pools
>>>> forever.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> When that's not feasible, dig a deep hole and dump it in. Or drop
>>>>>> barrels of junk into an ocean subduction zone.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's simply wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's irrational to store nuclear waste locally. Nuke policy is mostly
>>>>>> fear driven. And nukes are unpopular in some quarters by people who
>>>>>> really don't want us to have affordable, safe energy.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a very rational and studied fear of nuclear power.
>>>>
>>>> Why?  It's very safe when done carefully.
>>>>
>>>> The little modular reactors sound cool.
>>>
>>> Putting used nuclear fuel someplace deepish underground is important.
>>> While a nuclear war would be very very bad, surface storage makes it
>>> much, much worse.
>>>
>>> The Chernobyl disaster released about 3.5% of the core inventory of one
>>> reactor out of four.(*)
>>>
>>> One Hiroshima-size bomb on top of a comparable large nuke plant could
>>> release all the inventory in all four cores, which would be about
>>> 4/0.035 ~ 114 times worse than Chernobyl.
>>>
>>> If the site included extensive spent-fuel pools, the total would be
>>> correspondingly larger--maybe 500 Chernobyls, maybe more.  And that's
>>> just one installation.
>>>
>>> Not a bad score for one small bomb--there are lots bigger ones. :(
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Phil Hobbs
>>>
>>> (*)
>>> <https://www.oecd-nea.org/jcms/pl_28292/chernobyl-chapter-ii-the-release-dispersion-deposition-and-behaviour-of-radionuclides>
>>
>> I'd be tempted to put hot waste in very heavy steel casks and drop
>> them into the Mariana Trench:
>>
>> .<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Trench>
>>
>> It's 11 Km deep, and is where the Pacific Plate is subducting under
>> the Mariana plate, so those caskets are in for the long term.  Nor is
>> retrieval all that easy, or a nuclear weapon of much consequence.  If
>> it even works under such pressure.
>>
>> Joe
> 
> Yes. Waste can be mixed into concrete or vitrified and dumped tens of
> thousands of feet into a trench. Only irrational fear prevents that.

Only the irrationally over-confident would contemplate it. Donald Trump 
would probably go for it.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney