Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

On 5/07/2024 10:18 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 05/07/2024 12:36, Bill Sloman wrote:

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:

<snip>

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.

 >

Yes. In my ever so well informed opinion.
The pyramids have been up and stable longer than ten half lives of any radioactive isotope crated in a reactor'

The oldest pyramid was completed around 2650 BC so it been up for about 4,600 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Djoser
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product
The seven long lived fission products have half-lives ranging from 211,000 years ( Technicium-99) to 15.7 million year (Iodine-199).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-lived_fission_product
So you've made yet another ludicrously false claim.

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.
>

Almost identical, in that a carbon fire in an unenclosed reactor spread nuclear material around. I know ALL about BOTH accidents . I read ALL the literature
 And more importantly, I understood it.

Or think you did. The problem in the in the Chernobyl reactors wasn't just a carbon fire - while they did use some graphite moderator elements, and these did catch on fire - but a control failure which lead to a much higher fission rate than the cooling system could cope with, generating enough steam to blown the structure apart.

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.
>

Oh dear. That is completely irrelevant, It doesnt matter what a bomb was designed for, when it goes off accidentally - the results are the same.

But neither reactor was designed as a bomb, and only Chernobyl dismantled itself. The Windscale pile just burnt, though it did get very hot, before they finally blocked the air inlets.
Not the same result at all.

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

 Yup.
Of course if the politicians had allowed the rods to be transported to a reprocessing facility there wouldn't have been so many onsite.
 Politicos and greens are dangerous people.

But people who imagine themselves to be more expert than they are also pose significant risks, and do need to be outed as pretentious twits.>

Read that too, in great detail

And presumably with the same pathetically poor level of comprehension.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com