Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

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