Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Peter Fairbrother <peter@tsto.co.uk>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Whoops! The Atlantic Makes Trump Look EPIC In Cover Intended as a
 Smear
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 21:20:02 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 41
Message-ID: <vdccpj$1sd5s$1@dont-email.me>
References: <20240913a@crcomp.net> <vd7d5j$t3rh$3@dont-email.me>
 <vd7jsk$u6ar$1@dont-email.me> <vd7m9n$uguu$1@dont-email.me>
 <vd99hd$1akhk$1@dont-email.me> <vdaiv4$1k3in$1@dont-email.me>
 <vdbqct$1pkqm$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2024 22:20:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="3e213ea087232eed88c9e0478dbc5776";
	logging-data="1979580"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yYyV/46iyBqMKBbPTj8OutvYbAQGznVI="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:eKtISi1wtM++UAa7I8ol/ezWMTs=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <vdbqct$1pkqm$1@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2834

On 29/09/2024 16:06, Cryptoengineer wrote:
> On 9/28/2024 11:53 PM, Peter Fairbrother wrote:
[...]
>> I have nothing against thorium vs uranium - except idiots who plan 
>> trailer-sized molten salt reactors which can't cope with a post-SCRAM 
>> meltdown and which are a huge proliferation risk and claim because 
>> it's thorium it's somehow safer, and the like, and the like, and 
>> people who go on and on about the supposed benefits of thorium.
> 
> [...]
> 
> You must be thrilled by Project Pele
> 
> https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3915633/dod-breaks-ground-on-project-pele-a-mobile-nuclear-reactor-for-energy-resiliency/
> 


Oh yes. A "mobile" nuclear reactor for DoD projects in "remote and 
austere environments." At least they aren't planning to build one a day.

Except it needs a concrete containment which takes a year to build, and 
then needs several months to assemble - so not really very mobile, more 
prefabricated.

And suppose they build one for a base in Uppity-stan, but then decide to 
leave - after the reactor has been used for a while it isn't going to be 
very mobile. It's going to be highly radioactive and full of potential 
nuclear bomb-making material.


Also, anyone want a case of regulatory capture:  "Our tight partnership 
with INL and the Department of Energy Idaho Operations Office is leading 
the way forward not just for manufacturing advanced reactors, but also 
for regulating them in an efficient and safe manner."



What a wonderful idea. A pity it isn't thorium...


Peter Fairbrother