Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Pancho <Pancho.Jones@proton.me>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Remember "Bit-Slice" Chips ?
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 16:12:09 +0000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 176
Message-ID: <vjmv4q$l2rj$1@dont-email.me>
References: <o4ucnYo2YLqmZ876nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@earthlink.com>
 <lrl33gF2rglU1@mid.individual.net>
 <9eb45192-e996-fa3d-b002-c02798bb2b7a@example.net>
 <lrmmorFb62qU1@mid.individual.net> <7Gq5P.102876$7FA3.79818@fx13.iad>
 <5d39f504-e3f6-3830-a9fc-fc79cf7fc557@example.net>
 <vj6pc9$ctrb$12@dont-email.me>
 <992330af-c771-9db3-7d20-deb5e0cb882d@example.net>
 <vj9os3$10sqc$13@dont-email.me>
 <7896d790-e533-a390-b024-abc1edcd1c15@example.net>
 <vjaib9$16171$2@dont-email.me>
 <253549be-ac18-daa7-6b9a-a3b41e3e91e7@example.net>
 <vjbq25$1g5t2$3@dont-email.me>
 <54acad70-d817-060f-5378-304258c3a1f0@example.net>
 <vjcffr$1k27r$2@dont-email.me>
 <d3f42cea-362a-834c-50e5-5fcbdb404cda@example.net>
 <vjee53$23087$2@dont-email.me>
 <ca594c10-159d-9bf9-864c-b671dbac5019@example.net> <675b4ab4@news.ausics.net>
 <vjh41c$3btea$6@dont-email.me>
 <951ea8ab-74d9-9d47-a1a7-9143340fc421@example.net>
 <vjjqlj$3vp9p$1@dont-email.me> <vjk2np$nd7$7@dont-email.me>
 <vjm9ot$gunu$1@dont-email.me> <vjmdml$hgj4$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2024 17:12:11 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d94ce3dde98f41758d34451730a790d1";
	logging-data="691059"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mOyNNjrdVIVCEqZhZ/2tjJneKecbQYKw="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KnHbQOGNBCzpmlIc7ZjV9XJhYQo=
In-Reply-To: <vjmdml$hgj4$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 8993

On 12/15/24 11:14, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 15/12/2024 10:07, Pancho wrote:
>> On 12/14/24 13:55, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 14/12/2024 11:37, Pancho wrote:
>>>> On 12/14/24 10:31, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just saw this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "China to build first-ever thorium molten salt nuclear power 
>>>>> station in Gobi Desert"
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-06/china-building-thorium- 
>>>>> nuclear- power-station-gobi/104304468
>>>>>
>>>>> Will be interesting to see if they will succeed!
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested, there is a thorium startup, Copenhagen 
>>>> Atomics, that have put out a couple of good promo videos.
>>>>
>>>> The first describes the worlds general energy problem:
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVue7cgmM00>
>>>>
>>>> The second details Copenhagen Atomics "Onion Core" thorium molten 
>>>> salt reactor.
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqxvBAJn_vc>
>>>>
>>>> Obviously it is typical startup hype, but the guy touches on most of 
>>>> the issues. In particular he addresses the fact we need cheap 
>>>> energy, which a lot of the renewable discussions try to cover up. 
>>>> Secondly he discusses non electrical energy use, which many 
>>>> renewable discussions also skip over.
>>>>
>>>> As I understand it, molten salt reactors have two main tech 
>>>> problems, corrosion and continuously separating out unwanted fission 
>>>> products.
>>>
>>> No fission reactor is perfect. It's engineering, not religion.
>>>
>>
>> But, if we are to adopt nuclear for the bulk of our global energy it 
>> is clear that fuel price/availability will be affected, and hence 
>> breeder reactors with their massively improved fuel efficiency will be 
>> more significant.
>>
> 
> Again that is a qualitative, not a quantitative comment, and is not as 
> true as you think it is.
> 
> Foe example, the cost of the actual raw uranium mined ore in a reactor 
> (before its been turned into fuel rods) is something like a tenth of a 
> cent per kWh.
> 
> Uranium ore is around $50/lb last time I looked.
> 
> Now the Japanese, who prefer not to have to import stuff, did a study on 
> extracting  Uranium from seawater, There are 4 billion tonnes of the 
> stuff in the sea.
> 
> They estimated $200/lb.  So worst case £0.004 increase on the final kWh.
> 

This is not an established technology. It needs to be demonstrated to 
work in volume and scale up before we can rely on it.

AIUI, there are doubts about it.

> Hardly earth shattering.
> 
> The uranium cost is to all intents and purpose *completely irrelevant*.
> 
> The cost of nuclear electricity is completely dominated by the up front 
> cost to build the reactor and the interest paid on the money to do that. 
> High interest rates killed Britain's nuclear construction. And the rise 
> of anti-nuclear regulations quadrupled the cost and time to build a 
> reactor.
> 
> Fast breeders cost even more. They simply are not in the current 
> climate, cost effective returns on investment
> 

I understand the current cost of Uranium is low, but for a zero carbon 
solution we need a massive global expansion. That will put a very rapid 
squeeze on fuel availability, Until things like sea water extraction 
have been proven. Fuel availability, i.e. cost is an issue.

Like sea water extraction, breeder reactors are also a solution.
> 
> Which is why we are all talking 'SMR' designed to circumvent the 
> regulations with type approval, so that buoild times and hence capital 
> costs, go back to where they used to be.
> 
> About 1/4 of what they are now.
> 
>>> Currently the best bet are modern straightforward PWR designs that 
>>> are well understood, shrunk to a size that makes mass factory 
>>> production possible.
>>>
>>
>> If we understand the design we might just as well build big ones. 
>> Small mass production is more to get around research and regulation 
>> problems of new systems.
>>
> Well exactly. Samll reactors are safer and cheaper to install if they 
> have type approval. No one is trying to optimise uranium efficiency. 
> Just to get some reactors built is all, before the Greens wreck the 
> country.
> 

> And there are other benefits of small reactors. You can build more of 
> them near to where the energy is needed reducing the cost of high power 
> transmission lines...yoir grid becomes what it used to be - a 
> lightweight *balancing* system, not intended for massive power flows.
> 

I don't know what near means, 200km isn't that far. In the past we had 
at least 3 reactors that close to London. Sizewell is still running.

> 
>>> Once we have avoided the renewable energy catastrophe, *then* its 
>>> time to look at thorium.
>>>
>>
>> We should do both. People are scared of building big reactors with 
>> long payback times because it seems likely cheaper systems will be 
>> developed to undercut them. However, I think energy security should be 
>> viewed like military security, the government should pay to give us 
>> that security, just in case.
> 
> Then you think wrong.  

I think you misunderstood my intended meaning. I was talking about 
building big reactors, existing designs, Hinkley Point C, Sizewell C, 
etc. The government should just get on with it. SMRs are just another 
excuse for politicians to delay.

> Look deeper. People will of course develop all 
> sorts of reactor tech including thorium - India especially - but there 
> is simply no shortage of fuel whatsoever in the world at large, In fact 
> there is enough fore 10,000 years of today's populations all having a 
> Western lifestyle.
> 

I understand thorium/molten salt is research, not a current solution, 
but, if we hadn't stopped work on breeders 40 years ago...


> There is no point in diverting any money we might save on renewable 
> energy cancellation into yet more ego projects of different technologies.
> 
> If we don't build out what we can do right now, 


Yes, I agree, Sizewell C. If Rolls-Royce can knock out SMRs in the near 
future, great, but we shouldn't wait. That's what I mean about needing 
to invest in energy security, rather than delay for something which 
might be better/cheaper. It was a mistake to reduce energy to pure 
economics, while ignoring security of supply.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========