Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: john larkin <jl@glen--canyon.com>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: The Spanish Grid Drop-out - recently released information.
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 07:01:29 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <4nsb2k1llaff90ho2kjmo26l36c9dupcke@4ax.com>
References: <qRTTP.120685$vK4b.43405@fx09.ams4> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 16:01:29 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="6c369b85e0c12ce475de9287207a01b8";
	logging-data="3319644"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jbziEV95YBYrBMS5Q1Qw6"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
Cancel-Lock: sha1:K4j3Xe621JEdtOluMKyn6R9fQGE=
Bytes: 4716

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

That's terrifying. As time goes on, it gets easier to make nukes and
to deliver them, and people seem to keep getting crazier.

Even conventional explosives delivered by a swarm of drones could be
nasty.