Path: 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 Physics Behind the Spanish Blackout
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 03:23:54 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <1029pnd$1c4kc$7@dont-email.me>
References: <m66c4kdc428f5va3f1lf1hok2d8r7n8027@4ax.com>
 <1026c1c$fci3$1@dont-email.me> <cnqd4khvpf8bc1m581lt2kquavofaqj6br@4ax.com>
 <1027bpv$mvq1$1@dont-email.me> <kapjhlx4on.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <1027e64$nfnr$2@dont-email.me> <krrjhlxbmu.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <1rdokas.pew8b1jlata8N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>
 <1028e6l$11k90$5@dont-email.me> <1028me9$1323e$3@dont-email.me>
 <1029eop$1936b$2@dont-email.me> <1029mmg$1c5lm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:23:57 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="34645dec4590aa0ca78c0dbc763a6292";
	logging-data="1446540"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19fPFZs6r/xjkC9q1cJoybT9SnrdyT8By0="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IMGWGy9nzzVwADPnLbNfI2U+jVk=
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250610-10, 11/6/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <1029mmg$1c5lm$1@dont-email.me>

On 11/06/2025 2:32 am, David Brown wrote:
> On 10/06/2025 16:16, Bill Sloman wrote:
>> On 10/06/2025 5:21 pm, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 10/06/2025 07:01, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>>> On 10/06/2025 6:44 am, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2025-06-09 21:54, Don Y wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OTOH, we're sticking with other technologies (fossil fuels -- 
>>>>>>> coal -- and
>>>>>>> nukes) despite obvious and yet to be solved problems INHERENT in 
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> technology.  Adding "inertia" synthetically to a network is a 
>>>>>>> considerably
>>>>>>> more realistic goal than sorting out how to deal with nuclear 
>>>>>>> waste or
>>>>>>> the consequences of burning carbon.
>>>
>>> Technically and economically, dealing with nuclear waste is many 
>>> orders of magnitude easier than dealing with the consequences of 
>>> burning carbon.
>>
>> Nuclear fission waste is mixture of isotopes. Some of them are very 
>> radioactive and decay fast, and keeping them safe until they've mostly 
>> decayed is technically demanding. The less radioactive isotopes are 
>> easier to handle, but some of them stay dangerously radioactive for 
>> upwards of 100,000 years, and keeping them safely isolated for that 
>> length of time is an as yet unsolved problem
>>
> 
> We all know that, I believe.  There are two ways to handle the waste - 
> bury it deep enough, or use reprocessing/recycling to reduce the worst 
> of the waste.  (Of course a better idea is to use more advanced nuclear 
> reactors that produce more electricity for less waste.)

There aren't any. If you fission U-233 (which is what thorium reactors 
do) you get slightly different proportions of exactly the same isotopes 
as you get from U-235 which pose essentially the same problems.

You don't get any Pu-239 from neutron capture in U-238, but that's a 
feature rather than a bug.

Nuclear fusion is more promising and hydrogen-boron fusion doesn't 
produce any neutrons at all - or wouldn't if anybody could get it to work.

https://hb11.energy/

<snip>

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney