>> As we speed down the smart motorways of modern life we need to take
>> care of the mess we're squirting out of our back ends.

Some of us are trying to eat.

Bill

On 11/04/2022 18:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

<snip>

> Tell me about it. In a democracy its the most low IQ ignorant useless
> uneducated total ArtStudents™ that get their way.

Some people are simply too thick to realise they're not very bright:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/03/greenpolitics-liberaldemocrats

On 14/04/2022 14:07, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:56:02 +0100, Steve Walker
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>
>>> Actually nuclear waste is being handled. If you'd listened to a "Life
>>> Scientific" program on BBC R4 a few years ago, where the guest was Prof. Sue
>>> Ion of Imperial College, you'd have heard her debunk this "nuclear waste
>>> problem" myth. She said quite clearly that waste is being glassified and has
>>> been for 20 years. What that gives you is stuff that can be stored underground
>>> quite safely with no possibility of leaks. Newly removed fuel elements are
>>> stored under water for 10 years before being treated, after which time they
>>> are processed.
>>
>> Not only is it being handled, but the stockpiles of old waste from the
>> earlier nuclear programmes (often dirty as it was a crash programme to
>> support the military rather than/as well as the civil programmes) are
>> being cleared up too.
>
>
> Prof. Sue Ion of Imperial College obviously didn't convince the
> authors of the articles below.
>
> https://www.theengineer.co.uk/qa-dealing-with-britains-nuclear-waste/
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/28/push-for-new-uk-nuclear-plants-lacks-facility-for-toxic-waste-say-experts
>
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2313277-the-uks-nuclear-waste-and-the-geological-solution/
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/10/uk-energy-strategys-nuclear-dangers-and-glaring-omissions
>
> https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/radwaste/history-of-nuclear-waste-disposal-proposals-in-britain/
>
> https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/nuclear-power-in-the-uk/
>
> https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/nuclear-waste-27-7-21/
>
> https://inews.co.uk/news/nuclear-power-plant-plans-uk-could-run-out-room-radioactive-waste-1563015
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4407421.stm

What we are lacking is a long term, underground store. However, the
waste is currently being treated, reduced and vitrified in long term
storage flasks. They are fine stored above ground for now and can simply
be moved to the underground store when one is built.

The volumes are not large.

On 14/04/2022 16:34, Fredxx wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 18:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Tell me about it. In a democracy its the most low IQ ignorant useless
>> uneducated total ArtStudents™ that get their way.
>
> Some people are simply too thick to realise they're not very bright:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/03/greenpolitics-liberaldemocrats

Those numbers seem odd. The average IQ is supposed to be 100, so it
seems the vast majority of people who vote at all are above average,
with only the small number of BNP voters being below.

On 14/04/2022 16:34, Fredxx wrote:
> On 11/04/2022 18:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Tell me about it. In a democracy its the most low IQ ignorant useless
>> uneducated total ArtStudents™ that get their way.
>
> Some people are simply too thick to realise they're not very bright:
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/03/greenpolitics-liberaldemocrats
>
>
>
ROFLMAO!

Exactly wrong, as per usual, in the Guardian...

--
"If you don’t read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 17:08:54 +0100, Steve Walker
<steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

>What we are lacking is a long term, underground store. However, the
>waste is currently being treated, reduced and vitrified in long term
>storage flasks. They are fine stored above ground for now and can simply
>be moved to the underground store when one is built.
>
>The volumes are not large.

Waste nuclear fuel contains a substantial amount (95%+) of useful
uranium that could be re-used in fresh fuel once the 'poisons'* have
been removed. But ATM it's cheaper just to use fresh uranium and store
the whole used fuel rod without even processing it. That's what the
Finns are doing in their underground facility at Onkalo.

* the short-lived radionuclides that are the product of the fission
process and have half-lives in the order of a few tens to a couple of
hundred years or so and which absorb neutrons and kill off the chain
reaction essential to the fission process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison#Accumulating_fission_product_poisons

--
Chris

On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 18:18:20 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On 11/04/2022 17:43, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Apr 2022 17:25:20 +0100, Andrew
>> <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/04/2022 16:38, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why do you say windmills don't work reliably?
>>>> They work completely reliably in the context of windmills.
>>>> Just because they don't rotate when it's not windy doesn't make them
>>>> unreliable. They just have to be used in a way that's appropriate for
>>>> windmills.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ok, so what happens when the wind is too strong ?.
>>
>> The windmills stop working?
>>
>>> The windmills are
>>> feathered and the owners (including Camerons FIL) are paid to not
>>> produce any power.
>>
>>>> When there is a blocking high pressure over the arctic for days and days
>>> blanketing the UK in freezing fog, there is no wind and no solar
>>> either, then what ?
>>
>> If it happens and I don't remember when it last did, adapt.
>
>Oh dear. more utter ignorance on display, it happens regularly all the time
>
>>
>>> How much electricity does the NHS need 24/7 ?. I don't know, and I would
>>> like to know. Are you prepared to manage without all those MRI scanners,
>>> ITU hi-tech gear, and all the other paraphernalia that needs an
>>> uninterrupted supply of power at 230V and 50 Hz between November and
>>> April every year ?.
>>
>> If the production of the energy it needs is going to be destructive of
>> health, reduce the paraphernalia.
>
>I think we are dealing with a mental case here.
>
>>
>>>> I'd much rather find ways to store windmill produced energy.
>>>
>>> How ?. Do the maths. NO such storage systems exist and unless the
>>> laws of physics can be bent, there is unlikely to be one for the
>>> foreseeable future. Dreaming about a 'solution' will not solve the
>>> immediate problem that the UK is possibly facing power blackouts
>>> and definitely facing massive energy cost increases. Ask a dairy
>>> farmer how much his costs have gone up over the last year.
>>
>> I don't know how farmers put up with the abuse.
>>
>>>> than find ways to get rid of nuclear waste produced by hastily and
>>>> precariously built nuclear reactors.
>>>>
>>> we have already spent billions on the best reprocessing system for
>>> nuclear waste that money can buy. It works, so we can use it.
>>
>> It does work and we can use it but should we, considering the history
>> of disasters and modern methods of testing?
>>
>>>>> It's hard to get a bit of bricklaying professionally done these days,
>>>> let alone safe nuclear reactor construction.
>>>
>>> Nonsense. The people who build nuclear reactors (and subs) are the
>>> best brains available,
>>
>> The best brains available don't always get their way.
>>
>Tell me about it. In a democracy its the most low IQ ignorant useless
>uneducated total ArtStudents™ that get their way.

That's precisely why we're saddled with a Nasty government.

>
>>
>>> unlike your jobbing brickie, and apart from
>>> decorative cladding, no brickwork will be found in any nuclear
>>> power plant anyway, it's all reinforced concrete .
>>>
>>>> It's not as easy as safely cladding multi-storey flats.
>>>
>>> The people who build nuclear power plants know what they are doing
>>
>> We'd absolutely need to think so, in order to sleep at night.

On 14/04/2022 11:31, Mike Halmarack wrote:

> Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
> amount of nuclear energy.
>

Have you actually bothered to read what other people have said ? !!.

The only 'viable' source of 'renewables' is massively subsidised
and *unreliable* wind and solar. Nuclear power stations are designed
to run flat out for 40+ years, in which case use them for *primary*
power supply.

> Posters here have said that where there have been previous nuclear
> accidents, the same mistakes won't be made again, which is probably
> true.
> Future, as yet unforeseen, mistakes are another matter.
>

Such as ?. Please provide some actual details.

> Even when nuclear reactors function as planned there is the problem of
> nuclear waste.

No there isn't. We have spent £billions on a state of the art
reprocessing facility in Cumbria.

> The waste from the current level of nuclear reaction is not being
> handled effectively and this threatens destructive damage in the
> future.

Utter hand waving BS. Provide some detail for that claim.

> As nuclear power stations and nuclear powered military devices can be
> shutdown as required, it should be possible to use them
> intermittently.

Madness. Run them flat out and enjoy the reliable power.

> As we speed down the smart motorways of modern life we need to take
> care of the mess we're squirting out of our back ends.

Are you developing the same medical issues that Dim Tim, he of
vegan fame (been awol for some time now) ?.

On 14/04/2022 16:07, williamwright wrote:
>
>>> As we speed down the smart motorways of modern life we need to take
>>> care of the mess we're squirting out of our back ends.
>
> Some of us are trying to eat.
>
> Bill

And what comes out of our backends might generate a trivial
amount of electricity via biodigesting but a better byproduct
is to use sewage sludge in place of Ukraneianand Russian
fertiliser (farmers were paying £200/tonne for nitrate fertiliser
and are now paying £1000/tonne).

On 14/04/2022 11:41, Mike Halmarack wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:35:20 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> That's why billionaires are building bunkers in New Zealand,
>>
>> No billionaire is doing anything like that.
>
> https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are-building-bunkers-in-new-zealand-prepping-for-the-apocalypse/

Fools and their money are always parted.

On 14/04/2022 17:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 14/04/2022 16:34, Fredxx wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 18:18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Tell me about it. In a democracy its the most low IQ ignorant useless
>>> uneducated total ArtStudents™ that get their way.
>>
>> Some people are simply too thick to realise they're not very bright:
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2008/nov/03/greenpolitics-liberaldemocrats
>>
>>
>>
> ROFLMAO!
>
> Exactly wrong, as per usual, in the Guardian...

QED

On 14/04/2022 11:21, newshound wrote:

> Because I wish we had more of them, especially GPs, and because for all
> the rewards that is a particularly stressful job.
>

Why is it stressful ?. Plenty of people struggling in the private
sector, having to meet 'targets', being forced to be a member of
generation rent, always at risk of redundancy are the people
who have a stressful life. Do GP's have to spend 5 hours a day
commuting to and from work ?, I had to, for 35 years and a
stressful job too with very demanding 'managers'.

If GP's didn't have to spend so much of their time dealing
with an ageing population and so many time-wasters.

Just try watching C5 fly-on-the-wall documentary set in
a GP practice and you will soon realise that 50% of the
patients should not have bothered their GP and used up a
valuable appointment.

The simple fact is highly qualified doctors do not want to
become a GP. That is almost a signal that they have cannot
take the pressure of being a hospital doctor. So as a
result the only people likely to become a GP will be female,
with pre and school age kids who just want an easy life,
working 2 days a week but only seeing patients for half a
day. More than half the GPs in my GP practice are now in
this category.

On 14/04/2022 18:27, Andrew wrote:
> And what comes out of our backends might generate a trivial
> amount of electricity via biodigesting but a better byproduct
> is to use sewage sludge in place of Ukraneianand Russian
> fertiliser (farmers were paying £200/tonne for nitrate fertiliser
> and  are now paying £1000/tonne).

My local farmer says £830 per tonne.

Bill

newshound <sradcliffe544@gmail.com> wrote
> On 13/04/2022 20:23, Andrew wrote:
>> On 12/04/2022 17:05, newshound wrote:
>>> On 12/04/2022 15:33, Andrew wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The GP situation is complex. After being given a massive pay increase
>>>> by NuLab in 2003/4 the effect on their NHS final salary pension was to
>>>> push them up to, and over Gordon Browns pensions Lifetime allowance..
>>>>
>>>> Ditto hospital consultants. There are penalties for doing this, like a
>>>> potential 55% tax on the excess. These penalties apply to *everyone*.
>>>> If my SIPP exceeds £1,073,000 I have to pay that tax, even if I
>>>> managed
>>>> to get it up to that amount by virtue of clever or lucky investments
>>>> and *not* because my employer/client made huge contributions as part
>>>> of
>>>> 'salary'.
>>>>
>>>> The GP OTOH (even though self employed !) just watches the largesse of
>>>> his taxpayer-funded pension roll in at zero investment risk to him,
>>>> and
>>>> is so annoyed at the tax implicatins that he/she retires then early,
>>>> and
>>>> then works as a locum for a couple of days a week.
>>>>
>>>> His replacement is almost certainly a part-time female with kids, who
>>>> froths at length on the GP website about 'work life balance'
>>>> (translation: I come in 2 days a week and probably only see patients
>>>> for half of one of those days). This is why a GP appointment is like
>>>> gold dust these days.
>>>>
>>>> Also add on 12 million pensioners, 560,000 over age 85 who are now
>>>> highly dependent on modern medicine to keep them alive. Naturally all
>>>> this needs constant assessment and 'review', which occupies a huge
>>>> amount of a GPs time.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It's seemed to me in recent years that these were behind some of the
>>> current NHS problems. I'm happy that Brown's tax and pensions policies
>>> were well-intentioned, but unforseen consequences and all that.
>>> Personally, I'd have no problem giving both GPs and Hospital
>>> Consultants some better tax breaks, given that they are extremely
>>> stressful jobs, as well as being highly necessary in a civilised
>>> society.
>>>
>> Why should they get tax breaks that I don't ?. It costs £250,000 to
>> train a doctor in the UK, far more than £45,000 'tuition' fees. Then
>> a lot more in post grad training.

> Because I wish we had more of them, especially GPs,

No real evidence that tax breaks would produce that.

> and because for all the rewards that is a particularly stressful job.

I'm not convinced that it is particularly stressful except in the
sense that most practices have stuff booked a long way ahead so
you can't just decide that you don't feel like showing up today etc.

Come to think of it, I don't recall ever being told that my GP is
off sick and asked whether I mind if another GP in the practice
sees me instead. Dunno why that is, its unlikely that they dont
get sick like the rest of us do.

> I'd also like to see nurses and care sector staff rewarded better, of
> course.

Why ? Our nurses and doctors all appear to live as well as
most of the rest of the community.

Why should those who wipe geriatric arses and feed the geriatrics
who can't feed themselves be rewarded better than anyone else ?

>> I and other private sector tax payers pay this and if I had £2 million
>> in my SIPP I would have to pay £550,000 tax on it, so to end up with
>> a £2 million pension I would need £2.5+ million. Fat chance.
>> The baby boomers who went into medicine paid *nothing* and
>> are now at the top of their incremental scales and immune from the
>> 2011 pension changes. These are the ones walking off with pensions
>> that would need £2 million to buy with an annuity. And forget the
>> 'stressful' life, a colleague is married to a hospital paediatrician
>> but she *never* sees any patients. All she does is write reports for
>> social services, and that's it, stressful my arse.
>> She will collect (or has already collected) her £2 million pension..
>> GP's are self employed yet still full members of the NHS superannuation
>> scheme ! (*). Cry on that self-employed plumber (who is paying for it).
>> They can boost their 'income' with a raft of box-ticking procedures
>> like
>> giving advice of weight loss or smoking.
>> This boosts their practice and their income and their pension then goes
>> up exponentially.
>> One GP in East London managed to get his income up to over £300,000
>> by taking 'advantage' of these fiddles.
>> He then retired with a gigantic tax-free lump sum and pension. It was
>> reported in the Guardian about 10 years ago.
>> (*) meanwhile, nurses employed by GP practices are *not* members of the
>> NHS superannuation scheme, because they are not 'employed' by the NHS..
>> Odd isn't it ?.
>>
>>> That said, the BMA has also done a pretty good job of controlling
>>> entry to the profession, as did the dockers and print workers in the
>>> 50's and 60's. I suspect that a more "centrally planned" approach that
>>> put more paramedics and well-trained nurses in the front line might
>>> also be more cost-effective. I'd be more than happy to have my minor
>>> complaints and ailments filtered by a good nurse.
>> There used to be only one or two token females every year at the
>> start of the academic year amongst the chaps who were frequently
>> selected on the basis of how they could boost the Medical Schools
>> rugby, cricket or rowing teams. Barts and the London both guilty
>> of this because of the annual rivalry between the two medical
>> schools rugby teams.
>> Now 50% of the annual intake are female.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:22:59 +1000, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> On 14 Apr 2022 at 09:15:08 BST, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 13/04/2022 14:14, Chris Hogg wrote:
>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 13:00:19 +0100, Mike Halmarack
>>
>>>> I've said several times already in this thread that I believe we
>>>> should use renewable energy to the greatest extent combined with
>>>> minimal use of nuclear energy.
>>
>>>> Minimal use of nuclear energy because of Fukushima and Chernobyl to
>>>> name but two.
>>
>>> What do you mean by 'minimal use of nuclear energy'? If the wind
>>> doesn't blow for several days in winter, when there's precious little
>>> sunshine for solar power, then the whole country would have to be
>>> powered by nuclear energy, otherwise thousands, possibly tens of
>>> thousands, of the elderly and vulnerable will die of cold
>>> (incidentally, far more than have died as a result of even the worst
>>> nuclear accident). That would mean building something like 30 Hinkley
>>> Point C power stations. Having built them, you might as well use them,
>>> they will be no less safe. Stop wasting money on duplicating the
>>> generation capacity with unreliable systems. Spend it on social
>>> infrastructure, the NHS, whatever, and the country will benefit.
>>
>> Mike Halmarack has already tried to brush away the fact that there were
>> two one-week periods this winter ("...I don't remember it...") where the
>> wind didn't blow and solar output was minimal. Over those periods the
>> whole of the renewables programme provided 10% or less of the
>> electricity demand, and most of that was provided by the
>> highly-polluting biomass - wood chip imported expensively from Canada!
>>
>> To cope with this, nuclear, gas, coal, OCGT and the interconnectors were
>> running flat out. Halmarack does not seem to grasp that it is precisely
>> this situation that has to be catered for, and that if the
>> infrastructure (more nuclear and gas) is built to supply it, then it
>> makes sense to use it - making the expensive and resource-intensive
>> renewables issue totally irrelevant. I'm sure that's what the
>> environmentalists are afraid of, should people find out and start to
>> demand changes.
>
> I notice that as I type, this sunny Thursday morning, wind is producing a
> massive 2.4% of our electricity, while over half our power is coming
> from gas.
>
>> Oh! And there aren't enough batteries around to make up the shortfall of
>> energy at those times.
>
> Some 10 years ago there were these solar stations proposed for Australia
> -
> producing 360MW IIRC, with molten salt as the heat store so they could
> operate
> more or less continuously. They seemed to make sense, given that desert
> and
> sun are two things they have plenty of. Anyone know why they seem not to
> have
> gone ahead?

None went ahead. Because they aren't economically viable
compared with using the coal fired power stations which
mostly use brown coal which isn't useful for anything else.

Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 Apr 2022 14:26:14 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13 Apr 2022 at 13:00:19 BST, Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 13 Apr 2022 11:21:12 GMT, Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13 Apr 2022 at 12:11:45 BST, Mike Halmarack
>>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 13 Apr 2022 06:50:37 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 12 Apr 2022 23:54:55 +1000, Mike Halmarack
>>>>>> <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>>>> If they're mistaken in that belief, does this mean that scientists,
>>>>>>> engineers and economists are fallible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, that they prefer to work than not work.
>>>>>
>>>>> And protect their investment in shares.
>>>>
>>>> I see you continue to have nothing constructive to say about where we
>>>> might
>>>> all get our energy from. It's been pointed out to you why the various
>>>> hand-wavy schemes people put forward have SERIOUS disadvantages,
>>>> which rule
>>>> them out for practical use.
>>>
>>> What I find strange is the self proclaimed "intelligent" assessors of
>>> the situation have to resort to so many stock phrases and Clichés to
>>> make their point.
>>
>> Such as?
>>
>>> I've said several times already in this thread that I believe we
>>> should use renewable energy to the greatest extent combined with
>>> minimal use of nuclear energy.
>>
>> And we've pointed out the issues that renewables present, if you wish to
>> replace all our existing sources with them. You still haven't proposed
>> any
>> system that, with renewables, can *reliably* replace our existing energy
>> supplies. People are not interested in unreliable ones.
>>
>> You might start by looking at the gridwatch website
>> (http://www.gridwatch.org.uk) which will tell you how much power we are
>> using,
>> and where it comes from. From previous posts, you seem to think that
>> "the wind
>> is always blowing somewhere" and that periods of extended calm caused by
>> blocking high pressure over Europe, combined with low sunlight, all
>> happening
>> in Winter just when demand is at its greatest, are rare to
>> non-existent. Well,
>> they happen at least a couple of times every winter. At such times,
>> wind is
>> low everywhere and contributes 1% of demand if you're lucky.
>>
>> Now: how d'ye propose to deal with that? Our solution is lots more
>> nuclear.
>> What's yours?
>
> Use of renewables to the greatest extent possible with the minimal
> amount of nuclear energy.

Problem is that it can't be minimal given the blocks of time
when there is no useful power from wind and solar and once
you have the nukes to cover those blocks of time, it makes no
sense to not run the nukes all the time and not bother with
the renewables that fuck the environment comprehensively.

Nukes fuck the environment far less because they are
a much more concentrated source of the energy.

> Posters here have said that where there have been previous nuclear
> accidents, the same mistakes won't be made again, which is probably
> true.

Absolutely certainly true, because it is possible
to work out why the accident happened and avoid
that happening again. In the case of Fukushima,
just move the auxilary power generation so that
no tsunami can ever take that out.

In the case of Chernobyle, don't build any more
that stupidly and don't play silly buggers with the
ones already built so stupidly.

France proves that that is perfectly possible.

> Future, as yet unforeseen, mistakes are another matter.

Just keep building more like we know work fine like the french ones.

> Even when nuclear reactors function as planned there is the problem of
> nuclear waste.

Nope, you just store it until it is economic to use it in
breeders instead of mining more uranium or thorium.

> The waste from the current level of nuclear reaction is not being
> handled effectively

Thats wrong.

> and this threatens destructive damage in the future.

Nope the high activity stuff decays quickly, the low level
stuff is no worse than the original uranium and thorium.
Better in bact because to you store it where it will never
be a problem.

> Increasing the level of mishandled nuclear waste should be
> minimised

It already is except in the fucked economy of the old
USSR with their obsolete nuke submarines etc.

> As nuclear power stations and nuclear powered military devices can be
> shutdown as required, it should be possible to use them intermittently..

But no point in doing that when you have them working.

> As we speed down the smart motorways of modern life we need to take
> care of the mess we're squirting out of our back ends.

We are in fact doing the exact opposite, fucking the environment with
hordes of stupid windmills that will only last for a decade or so.

On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 20:41:48 +1000, Mike Halmarack
<mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 04:35:20 +1000, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> That's why billionaires are building bunkers in New Zealand,
>>
>> No billionaire is doing anything like that.
>
> https://www.inquisitr.com/3950643/billionaires-are-building-bunkers-in-new-zealand-prepping-for-the-apocalypse/

That's bullshit, it isn't happening.

And it would be stupid to do it there, they have massive earthquakes
which demolished much of Christchurch for example.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 02:08:54 +1000, Steve Walker
<steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 14/04/2022 14:07, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Apr 2022 13:56:02 +0100, Steve Walker
>> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>> Actually nuclear waste is being handled. If you'd listened to a "Life
>>>> Scientific" program on BBC R4 a few years ago, where the guest was
>>>> Prof. Sue
>>>> Ion of Imperial College, you'd have heard her debunk this "nuclear
>>>> waste
>>>> problem" myth. She said quite clearly that waste is being glassified
>>>> and has
>>>> been for 20 years. What that gives you is stuff that can be stored
>>>> underground
>>>> quite safely with no possibility of leaks. Newly removed fuel
>>>> elements are
>>>> stored under water for 10 years before being treated, after which
>>>> time they
>>>> are processed.
>>>
>>> Not only is it being handled, but the stockpiles of old waste from the
>>> earlier nuclear programmes (often dirty as it was a crash programme to
>>> support the military rather than/as well as the civil programmes) are
>>> being cleared up too.
>> Prof. Sue Ion of Imperial College obviously didn't convince the
>> authors of the articles below.
>> https://www.theengineer.co.uk/qa-dealing-with-britains-nuclear-waste/
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/28/push-for-new-uk-nuclear-plants-lacks-facility-for-toxic-waste-say-experts
>>
>> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2313277-the-uks-nuclear-waste-and-the-geological-solution/
>>
>> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/apr/10/uk-energy-strategys-nuclear-dangers-and-glaring-omissions
>>
>> https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/radwaste/history-of-nuclear-waste-disposal-proposals-in-britain/
>> https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/nuclear-power-in-the-uk/
>> https://www.no2nuclearpower.org.uk/news/nuclear-waste-27-7-21/
>>
>> https://inews.co.uk/news/nuclear-power-plant-plans-uk-could-run-out-room-radioactive-waste-1563015
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4407421.stm

> What we are lacking is a long term, underground store.

That's not true. That stuff can be dumped in the Marianas trench.

> However, the waste is currently being treated, reduced and vitrified in
> long term storage flasks. They are fine stored above ground for now and
> can simply be moved to the underground store when one is built.
>
> The volumes are not large.

Andrew <Andrew97d-junk@mybtinternet.com> wrote:
> Nationalisation will massively extend the development of anything.
> How many smart phones and other devices have a Transputer in tehm ?.
> Do you even know what a Transputer is ?. Hint, it was the product of
> a nationalised 'industry' way back.
>
> Meanwhile, Acorn Computer, 100% private went on to create the Advanced
> Risc Machine chip which then became standalone company call ARM.

That's an interesting one, because a number of key people at Arm were
previously at INMOS. So essentially Arm was INMOS 2.0. INMOS was set up to
be the 'British Intel' with their own fabs, and it was the fabs that were
the problem. Arm was a decade later and by that point it was possible to
licence IP to other people building chips, which was a thing you couldn't do
in the 70s. INMOS having failed, Arm learnt from their mistakes.

I don't think public v private has a lot to do with it.

BTW Transputer is alive and well, in a modern form:
https://www.xmos.ai/

Theo

On 14 Apr 2022 at 20:24:47 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike Halmarack <mikehalmarack@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Posters here have said that where there have been previous nuclear
>> accidents, the same mistakes won't be made again, which is probably
>> true.
>
> Absolutely certainly true, because it is possible
> to work out why the accident happened and avoid
> that happening again. In the case of Fukushima,
> just move the auxilary power generation so that
> no tsunami can ever take that out.

Or build using a more modern design (the Fukushima reactors were old and due
to have been taken out of service soon anyway).

Recent designs don't need the auxilliary power for cooling after shutdown
anyway. Once the reactor is scrammed (which happened at Fukushima immediately
the earthquake was detected), everyone can go home.

--
27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross Berlin Wall.

"A reminder that the defining characteristic of a socialist regime is coercion, not equality."

Dan Hannan

On 14 Apr 2022 at 21:08:07 BST, Jock <kdj@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Apr 2022 02:08:54 +1000, Steve Walker
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

>> What we are lacking is a long term, underground store.
>
> That's not true. That stuff can be dumped in the Marianas trench.

That would certainly be my vote, it's 37,000 feet deep after all. And they'll
be subducted into the mantle, long-term.

You could probably dump them anywhere where there's subduction going on in the
ocean. After all, that's effectively what the Russians did with a number of
their obsolete subs.

--
27/6/1975 - Herbert Kiebler shot and killed trying to cross Berlin Wall.

"A reminder that the defining characteristic of a socialist regime is coercion, not equality."

Dan Hannan

On 11/04/2022 18:21, Andrew wrote:
> 'It' happens every at least once between November and April. Perhaps
> you live in a pleasant western coastal location where you rarely if
> ever get frost. Ask Adam how cold it can get in Donny in winter.

I'm near Donny on highish ground and we are still having occasional
overnight frosts. In Dec/Jan/Feb the temp is below zero most nights.

Bill

On 12/04/2022 14:52, Andrew wrote:
> On 12/04/2022 13:42, williamwright wrote:
>> On 11/04/2022 17:50, Mike Halmarack wrote:
>>> We should produce energy safely, as abundantly as possible, then adapt
>>> to the limitations.
>> By 'adapt' you mean degrade our lifestyles and wealth. I'm not
>> prepared to do that just because a load of marxists/greenies tell me I
>> must.
>>
>> Bill
>
> TBH, if people had limited themselves to <=2 kids since 1945, then
> we could have delayed 'man made global warming' for another 100
> years or so.

The irony is of course, that developed nations (you know, those with
ready access to reliable energy), do that naturally. Once you have
adequate healthcare systems so the child mortality rate falls to wester
levels, and some semblance of a welfare state, people no longer need to
have lots of children to try and ensure enough make it into adulthood,
to be able to support their parents in their old age.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 13/04/2022 21:16, Steve Walker wrote:
> On 13/04/2022 17:26, Chris Green wrote:
>> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> Chernobyl can be discounted. It involved a design that would never have
>>> been licenced in the West, with known deficiencies, being operated for
>>> an unauthorised test, with safety systems removed and continuing despite
>>> not being in the specified operating "zone" for the test. There's not a
>>> chance of one like that happening here. Never mind the training and
>>> regulation of the workers here, you couldn't get anything disconnected
>>> here without prior plans, discussion, approval by all disciplines,
>>> multiple sign-off, agreed methods of work, inspection, etc.
>>>
>> Still killed very few people.
>
> Expected to reach a total of around 4000 over the years.

I wonder if that might go up a bit now since a bunch of Russian
squaddies started digging trenches in the red forrest...

>
>>> More likely is a Fukushima type accident, but that was due to the
>>> systems needing constant power, whereas modern designs are able to fail
>>> into a safe state without external power and remain like that with
>>> nothing more than passive cooling.
>>>
>> One death actually attributable to the power station itself I think.
>
> A couple of hundred deaths due to the necessary evacuation of the area.
>
> It all pales into insignificance compared to the fossil fuel related
> deaths though and is low enough not to be a major concern amidst all the
> other reasons for deaths.

It also pales into insignificance against the deaths (> 20k) and
destruction caused by the tsunami that in turn damaged the Fukushima plant.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

On 15 Apr 2022 at 13:19:23 BST, John Rumm <see.my.signature@nowhere.null>
wrote:

> On 13/04/2022 21:16, Steve Walker wrote:
>> On 13/04/2022 17:26, Chris Green wrote:
>>> Steve Walker <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chernobyl can be discounted. It involved a design that would never have
>>>> been licenced in the West, with known deficiencies, being operated for
>>>> an unauthorised test, with safety systems removed and continuing despite
>>>> not being in the specified operating "zone" for the test. There's not a
>>>> chance of one like that happening here. Never mind the training and
>>>> regulation of the workers here, you couldn't get anything disconnected
>>>> here without prior plans, discussion, approval by all disciplines,
>>>> multiple sign-off, agreed methods of work, inspection, etc.
>>>>
>>> Still killed very few people.
>>
>> Expected to reach a total of around 4000 over the years.
>
> I wonder if that might go up a bit now since a bunch of Russian
> squaddies started digging trenches in the red forrest...

Dust, innit? I would have expected that to settle.

>>>> More likely is a Fukushima type accident, but that was due to the
>>>> systems needing constant power, whereas modern designs are able to fail
>>>> into a safe state without external power and remain like that with
>>>> nothing more than passive cooling.
>>>>
>>> One death actually attributable to the power station itself I think.
>>
>> A couple of hundred deaths due to the necessary evacuation of the area.
>>
>> It all pales into insignificance compared to the fossil fuel related
>> deaths though and is low enough not to be a major concern amidst all the
>> other reasons for deaths.
>
> It also pales into insignificance against the deaths (> 20k) and
> destruction caused by the tsunami that in turn damaged the Fukushima plant.

This is to my mind one of the more disgusting aspects of the fuss kicked up by
the anti-nuclear groups. They foam at the mouth over one death possibly
attributable to the reactors, and completely ignore the 25k deaths/missing
from the tsunami.

--
"Hard" and "Soft" Brexit are code words for Leaving or Staying in the EU, rather than for the terms of our departure.

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP