Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: john larkin 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: <7kmcflxsfb.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> <3lj92kth9m1cjjib8peq04tta6fecer0bv@4ax.com> <023a2k1v735395t0crgdfq36acujgn24gq@4ax.com> 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 wrote: >On 2025-05-14 17:37, john larkin wrote: >> On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:10:06 +0200, "Carlos E.R." >> wrote: >> >>> On 2025-05-14 19:19, john larkin wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 May 2025 22:28:23 +0200, "Carlos E.R." >>>> 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." >>>>>>> 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.