Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y,sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables
Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2024 21:36:57 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 90
Message-ID: <v68lt6$38v5h$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v64kvk$2cc3j$2@dont-email.me> <v655vt$2jju3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v65g26$2l5br$4@dont-email.me> <v65m9e$2mc0i$1@dont-email.me>
 <len6voFfsavU2@mid.individual.net> <v65rnf$2najh$3@dont-email.me>
 <v65up1$2nm1f$2@dont-email.me> <v6607n$2najh$6@dont-email.me>
 <v662kt$2oj9r$1@dont-email.me> <v66aja$2phnn$2@dont-email.me>
 <v66i1b$28omo$5@dont-email.me> <v68euo$37opv$2@dont-email.me>
 <v68gmk$388bm$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2024 13:37:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a6350b9885eb2ecf5f5a3960171b012b";
	logging-data="3439793"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX195hqfOkfWbBjIb11+KDJvIQkOwEMZg6Ng="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:dmsnXILYeXC8ZxJRua65dxq5BWw=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 240705-4, 5/7/2024), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v68gmk$388bm$2@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 4950

On 5/07/2024 8:08 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 05/07/2024 10:38, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 04/07/2024 17:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
>>> On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
>>
>>>>> More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted
>>>>> Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go
>>>>> along.
>>>>
>>>> Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to 
>>>> the sun.
>>
>> Using flying pigs might be an option but rockets are far too unreliable.
>>>
>>> Before that I would look into dropping it into a ****ing big active
>>> volcano. Although I suspect there are probably some good reasons I am
>>> unaware of why it's not done now.
>>
>> The main one being that volcanoes are spewing stuff *out* with a fair 
>> amount of it as fine dust particles. That is exactly what you *don't* 
>> want your nasty radioactive waste to be turned into.
>>
>> If you were crazy enough putting it into a subduction zone well away 
>> from any active volcanoes would be a better bet.
>>
> Well volcanoes are how most of the Uranium and thorium got to where it 
> is today.

Whatever makes you think that?
  `
>> There are (expensive) glassification processes that can render it more 
>> or less inert for long term storage underground.

The Australian CSIRO's Synroc process is one of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synroc

"Synroc was chosen in April 2005 for a multimillion-dollar 
"demonstration" contract to eliminate 5 t (5.5 short tons) of 
plutonium-contaminated waste at British Nuclear Fuel's Sellafield plant, 
on the northwest coast of England. "

>> Snag is the best 
>> places to put it geologically in the UK are not the same as the places 
>> where it will most likely be dumped (under Sellafield, formerly 
>> Winscale formerly Calder Hall - cunningly renamed after each mammoth 
>> cockup/MFU).
>>
> They could build a pyramid and stuff it in that., It would be safe.

In your ever-so-well-informed opinion.

>> We in the UK should give thanks to Cockcroft's follies. We were damn 
>> lucky that his somewhat wacky stack filter idea prevented massive 
>> fallout when the carbon moderator caught fire back in 1957. 
>> Radioactive discharge would have been ~20x worse without them.
>>
> Not even as bad as Chernobyl, which was the same without the filters and 
> 100 times bigger

Not remotely similar, as you would have been able to work out of you had 
read the link below.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

The Windscale piles had the sole purpose of generating plutonium - they 
just dissipated the heat they generated without making any effort to 
exploit it to generate power. The Chernobyl reactors were primarily 
electricity generating plants.

>> You have to wait for quite a while (years) after spent fuel comes out 
>> of the reactor before it is safe enough to work with. The stuff has to 
>> sit in cooling ponds for a while so that the neutron rich fission 
>> product isotopes have time to decay to something less radioactive.
> 
> Yup. And its perfectly safe there, as well.

As they were at Fukushima?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_accident

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com