bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

> Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> John Doe wrote:

>>> Actually it's to do with AGGRESSIVE NATO expansion to Russia's border
>>> countries, since the end of the Cold War when Russia gave up those
>>> countries.
>>
>> That's the core issue that never seems to get a mention on CNN or any
>> other Western news channel for that matter. One might have thought an
>> operation to purge neo-Nazis from the extreme East of Ukraine would
>> have enjoyed popular support from the Left-of-Center crowd here, but
>> for some inexplicable reason, all they do is complain about it!
>
> "Purge" neo-Nazis? Every Eastern European country (and every European
> country, and the United States, and...) has them, what would be the
> point, they just leave and come back later.
>
> Might as well talk about purging dingle berries from every stray cat's
> ass in Cambridge MA it's a nonsensical pretext.

That rhetoric has nothing to do with reality.

It's easy to research...

allintext:Ukraine "neo-Nazis" (limited to before 2020)

Jillions of results.

Ukraine is and always was a deeply divided country: Western Ukraine is
traditionally nazistic (they were on Hitler's side during World War II,
and they continue to be nazis) people speak their own dialect of Ukrainian
language and hate everyone else; Transcarpathia (Ruthenia) is anti-West
Ukrainian and moderately pro-Russian but most of all Ruthenians (speak
their language as well as Russian and Ukrainian) want to be reunited with
Hungary; Central Ukraine is the true Ukraine. Central Ukraine is very laid
back, moderately anti-West Ukrainian, moderately pro-Russian, speak
Ukrainian and Russian (in towns). Southern and Eastern Ukraine are very
anti-West Ukrainian, very pro-Russian, speak predominantly Russian
language. Crimea always considered itself Russian; hate West Ukrainians.

> An issue there tends to be a number of broke-brain Democrats in the US
> about is funding weapons and supply weapons transfer to Ukraine, I don't
> support the US shipping any weapons to ANYONE! ever! and I don't
> associate with types who think it's a good idea. It's almost never been
> a good idea for pushing 80 years.

The key word being "almost".

> Oh and that type of shithead behavior, caving to hawkish Democrats, will
> likely sink the Biden administration's chances of a second term for
> good, at best. I'd say that was a good thing if the chances it will be
> replaced with something way worse didn't approach 100%.

In other words, sending weapons to Ukraine is better than something else.

Apparently Trump Derangement Syndrome has much to do with Ukraine being
"The New Holy Land". Ukraine worked hard against Trump in 2016. Ukraine is
(or was) pushing for the New World Order, the imperialist warmonger ideal.

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 12:14:34 -0700, wmartin <wwm@wwmartin.net> wrote:

>On 4/19/22 08:27, jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 14:54:10 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On a sunny day (Tue, 19 Apr 2022 07:20:32 -0700) it happened
>>> jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
>>> <71ht5h1pk8t8eve6cj4jmir45n50ebr6pg@4ax.com>:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 05:21:20 -0000 (UTC), Mike Monett <spamme@not.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Ukraine war is a spiritual war. Spiritual wars are the most dangerous.
>>>>> It will go on forever.
>>>>>
>>>>> The birthplace of the Russian Orthodoxy is Kyiv, and Putin wants it back. It
>>>>> doesn't matter how many tanks he loses, or how many Russians are killed.
>>>>>
>>>>> These matter in material wars, but spiritual wars are completely different.
>>>>> They are not rational. Russia will find ways to get around the sanctions and
>>>>> continue fighting.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patriarch Kirill, A Former KGB Spy and Spiritual Guru is the driving force
>>>>> behind Putin’s Ukraine War:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rg5_GvssAw0
>>>>>
>>>>> Pride, patriotism and how Putin helped redefine what it means to be a 'true
>>>>> Russian'
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bItwqPQVnBs
>>>>
>>>> This is a great fork in history. Russia could crush Ukraine, hunker
>>>> down, absorb more small countries, isolate itself from the rest of
>>>> civilization, brain drain all its talent and morality, and stay poor
>>>> and barbaric for another 50 years.
>>>>
>>>> Or they could disappear Putin and become european.
>>>
>>> Or they could nuke US and divide it up between China for the east part and Russia for the west part
>>> FYI.
>>
>> That would aguably be historic too.
>>
>>>
>>> All that is required to trigger that is when byethen mistakes his red button for his toasters's.
>>> Or maybe they will make the whole US an animal reserve.
>>> Does not take much work...
>>
>> Our back yard is a jungle already. Snakes, skunks, raccoons, possum,
>> coyotes, squirrels, scrub jays, hummers, junkoes (sp?), feral cats,
>> wild parrots, giant ravens.
>>
>> A wild turkey has been spotted down in the village.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>A wild turkey? Was it's name Gavin something-or-other? :-)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/v5z9u5lcwle2ltt/Illegal_Alien_Glen_Park.jpg?raw=1

We were walking on Bernal Heights and saw two signs on trees.

Coyote Warning...

and

Missing Cat...

--

I yam what I yam - Popeye

On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

> > Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
> > an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
> > don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
> > put into storage. During those times security can be increased.

> What's the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using the electricity, right?

Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.
If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.

You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against future intrusions.
That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>Europeans need to start building those solar farms on the Sahara. They delver electricity at a lower price per kilowatt hour than you can get by burning fossil carbon.

"Desertec"
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec>
"The project failed twice due to the problem of transportation and
cost-inefficiency. The initiative was revived in 2020 with a focus on
green hydrogen, catering to both domestic demand and exports to
foreign markets."

"The Problem with Solar Energy in Africa"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o> (18:19)
1. Lack of sufficient interties between North Africa and Europe.
2. Photoelectric is currently cheaper than concentrated solar
power[1].
3. Photovoltaic can be built locally, which is easier and cheaper
than importing electricity from remote solar farms.
4. Water, exploitation and politics.

[1] Note that the relative costs are constantly changing. This
article paints a different picture of the comparative costs:
"The cost of Concentrated Solar Power fell by 47% between 2010 and
2019"
<https://www.evwind.es/2020/07/29/the-cost-of-concentrated-solar-power-fell-by-47-between-2010-and-2019/76120>

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Bozo is the LAST person I would consult on this issue.

Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an
attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

"the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
(Bozo lying)

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
(Bozo being weird)

Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an
attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

"the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
(Bozo lying)

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
(Bozo being weird)

Bozo relies on wikishit, that's his problem.

Bozo Bill Sloman, the most frequent troll in this group, is an
attention-craving chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

"the user has posted under the same name in other places, so not
nym-shifting" (Bozo sucks at logic)

"the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so"
(Bozo lying)

"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions"
(Bozo being weird)

On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 20:13:48 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

>And the nice simple chemicals that you can get by extracting fossil carbon are better used as chemical feed-stocks rather than burnt as fuel. Only a barbarian would do that.

Perhaps we should skip some of the inefficient intermediate steps and
go directly from carbon (coal) to food:
"Food from Coal-derived Materials by Microbial Synthesis"
<https://www.nature.com/articles/211735b0>
(sorry about the paywall, but I couldn't find a free version of the
article).

"Can Food Be Made From Coal?" (May 1984)
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/food/1984/05/27/can-food-be-made-from-coal/d80567ac-c656-4e0b-9f54-d505bd6d261a/>
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

Bozo says I am attracted to Fox News.

In fact, I did a little Fox News bashing in that reply.

No point in debating anything with a chronic liar like Bozo Bill Sloman.
When you refute its lies, it simply makes up more lies to cover those
prior lies. It's fiction never ends...

--
Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:e88:b0:446:383a:62ec with SMTP id hf8-20020a0562140e8800b00446383a62ecmr14552704qvb.68.1650432676110; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
> X-Received: by 2002:a05:6902:10c1:b0:63e:4f57:f533 with SMTP id w1-20020a05690210c100b0063e4f57f533mr18313526ybu.374.1650432675910; Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2022 22:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
> In-Reply-To: <t3nhis$l52$2@dont-email.me>
> Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=118.208.108.19; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi-
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 118.208.108.19
> References: <XnsAE7EDC9EA064idtokenpost@144.76.35.252> <t3n4ha$kst$3@dont-email.me> <3neu5htglgoug4jqp5qprbf7jg5r2aku62@4ax.com> <t3nhis$l52$2@dont-email.me>
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Message-ID: <f07fa288-d272-4eb5-89d3-a7734f04db96n@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: OT: The Ukraine War Will Go On Forever
> From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
> Injection-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 05:31:16 +0000
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> Lines: 24
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:666960
>
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 9:45:39 AM UTC+10, John Doe wrote:
>> Cursitor Doom wrote:
>> > John Doe wrote:
>> >
>> >> Actually it's to do with AGGRESSIVE NATO expansion to Russia's border
>> >> countries, since the end of the Cold War when Russia gave up those
>> >> countries.
>> >
>> > That's the core issue that never seems to get a mention on CNN or any
>> > other Western news channel for that matter. One might have thought an
>> > operation to purge neo-Nazis from the extreme East of Ukraine would have
>> > enjoyed popular support from the Left-of-Center crowd here, but for some
>> > inexplicable reason, all they do is complain about it!
>> Here and on YouTube, too. Google recently started radically censoring YouTube
>> comment section replies (via zealous shadow banning). Most of the original
>> posts are allowed through.
>>
>> Fox News and Newsmax viewers in the comment sections are ripping the skin off
>> of channel uploads by neocon warmongers. Different story on globalist CNN and
>> (especially) MSNBC. Weird.
>
> Fox News is designed to appeal to right-wing half-wits like you. Actual news services attract a slightly saner audience.
>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney
>
>

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:22:30 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<t3o8r6$s0e$4@dont-email.me>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
(UTC):

> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
> except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
USENET (**) has been 57.3% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
least 1098 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
504 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

u+u83qrF0I1h

On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
>>> On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>> On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
>>>> the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
>>>> smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
>>>> Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
>>>> has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
>>>> weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
>>>> masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
>>>> engine I hope to build in my backyard won't come for free :D.
>>>
>>> The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
>>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem
>>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)
>>>
>>> Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
>>> while we also work on short term solutions.
>
> Only if you haven't bothered to think how much you a re going to have to charge for each kilowatt hour of energy you sell to your customers to let you make a profit.
>
>> It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to over-regulation,
>> like Jeroen suggested.
>
> Then again some twenty of France's 56 nuclear reactors were all shut down for a while recently while mistakes in the original build were corrected, Nuclear plants have got more expensive recently because we've learned more about how they can go wrong. Solving problems that you can anticipate is cheaper that solving them after they've made themselves obvious, but it isn't free,
>
>> Then the word "nuclear" still spells suicide for many if not all politicians - which is the biggest problem, after decades of training the public to perceive the word like this now is pay time.
>
> It's taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing with long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated. They haven't been by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up a repository for long term storage - several hundreds of thousands of years - and they may never succeed. Not in my backyard is a potet slogan.
>
>> But we have no other sane option, we have to start building now indeed and cover by short term solutions.
>
> The Australian power generation industry doesn't see it that way. They are building new solar farms and new wind turbines at a great rate, because they produce electricity more cheaply than any other source and quite a bit more cheaply than nuclear plants. They are starting to invest grid-scale batteries, and the Australian Federal Government is in the process of extending our biggest hydroelectric scheme to offer a lot of pumped storage.
>
> https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
>
> The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels.
>

Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
simply because there is not as much sun.

Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden). But solar and
wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?)
could well be the right answer for Australia.

On 20/04/2022 08:05, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:01:33 PM UTC+10, whit3rd wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against future intrusions.
>> That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...
>
> The longer lived radio active isotopes stay dangerous for a few hundred thousand years.
>
> Cuneiform script has survived for 5,400 years. If you used that script to mark your site a dangerous, few of the passers-by would be able to read what it said.
>

The science doesn't change, even though language does. Warning signs
can be updated as needed, at minimal cost. People in the future will
still have Geiger counters and be able to check if the site is safe.
There are enough real challenges here that you don't need to invent
silly ones.

On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
>>> Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
>>> an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
>>> don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
>>> put into storage. During those times security can be increased.
>
>> What's the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using the electricity, right?
>
> Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
> plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.
> If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
> alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.
>
> You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against future intrusions.
> That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...

Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
waste storage easier.

I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and
concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as the
one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and mixing
with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there, keeping
us nice and warm from below.

(No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
pure speculation.)

Eddie wants so badly to nym-shift. That's a no-no here, Eddie!

Eddie has never posted anything NORMAL except when it got a spanking...

https://groups.google.com/g/sci.electronics.repair/c/MesPLcGU4BE

See also...
John Doe <always.look@message.header> (astraweb)
Peter Weiner <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Edward H. <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>

Eddie is an example for all newbies. Don't get spanked!

Spanked Eddie...

--
Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com> wrote:

> Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.freedyn.de!newsreader4.netcologne.de!news.netcologne.de!peer02.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx11.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: Edward Hernandez <dtgamer99@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: OT: The Ukraine War Will Go On Forever
> Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design,free.spam
> References: <XnsAE7EDC9EA064idtokenpost@144.76.35.252> <t3n4ha$kst$3@dont-email.me> <3neu5htglgoug4jqp5qprbf7jg5r2aku62@4ax.com> <t3nhis$l52$2@dont-email.me> <f07fa288-d272-4eb5-89d3-a7734f04db96n@googlegroups.com> <t3o8r6$s0e$4@dont-email.me>
> Lines: 40
> Message-ID: <AIN7K.1151818$dS2.458493@usenetxs.com>
> X-Complaints-To: https://www.astraweb.com/aup
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:26:40 UTC
> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:26:40 GMT
> X-Received-Bytes: 2220
> Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:666972 free.spam:18004
>
> The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
> <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:
>
>> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...
>
> And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
> <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:
>
>> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
>> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
>> CLUELESS...
>
> And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
> formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
> Wed, 20 Apr 2022 06:22:30 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
> <t3o8r6$s0e$4@dont-email.me>).
>
> NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.
>
> Further, John Doe stated the following in message-id
> <svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
> (UTC):
>
>> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
>> except insults to this group.
>
> Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe's post ratio to
> USENET (**) has been 57.3% of its posts contributing "nothing except
> insults" to USENET.
>
> ** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) John Doe has posted at
> least 1098 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
> 504 have been John Doe "troll format" postings.
>
> This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
> readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
> follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.
>
> u+u83qrF0I1h
>
>
>

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
> breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
> CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has continued to post incorrectly
formatted USENET articles that are devoid of content (latest example on
Wed, 20 Apr 2022 07:54:20 -0000 (UTC) in message-id
<t3oe7b$377$1@dont-email.me>).

NOBODY likes the John Doe troll's contentless spam.

Further, Troll Doe stated the following in message-id
<svsh05$lbh$5@dont-email.me> posted Fri, 4 Mar 2022 08:01:09 -0000
(UTC):

> Compared to other regulars, Bozo contributes practically nothing
> except insults to this group.

Yet, since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe's post ratio
to USENET (**) has been 57.4% of its posts contributing "nothing except
insults" to USENET.

** Since Wed, 5 Jan 2022 04:10:38 -0000 (UTC) Troll Doe has posted at
least 1100 articles to USENET. Of which 125 have been pure insults and
506 have been Troll Doe "troll format" postings.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow the rules it uses to troll other posters.

LV0UESTEqy+A

David Brown wrote:
> On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>
>>>> Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
>>>> an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
>>>> don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
>>>> put into storage. During those times security can be increased.
>>
>>> What's the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years,
>>> 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using
>>> the electricity, right?
>>
>> Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly)
>> is because one of the contaminants is
>> plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very
>> undesirable weapons manufacture.
>> If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs
>> AND the long year-count problem
>> alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality
>> of lead and arsenic.
>>
>> You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against
>> future intrusions.
>> That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...
>
> Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
> less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
> waste storage easier.
>
> I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and
> concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
> you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as the
> one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and mixing
> with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there, keeping
> us nice and warm from below.
>
> (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
> pure speculation.)
>

That doesn't look sane to me. It's likely to spew the waste all
over the place in short order. And there isn't really a lot of
other radioactive stuff already down there, either.

The real solution is to hide the highly radioactive and long-
lived waste in some uninteresting, geologically stable dry rock
layer.

Jeroen Belleman

On 20/04/2022 14:14, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:16:33 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
>>>> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
>>>>> On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
>>>>>> the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
>>>>>> smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
>>>>>> Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
>>>>>> has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
>>>>>> weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
>>>>>> masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
>>>>>> engine I hope to build in my backyard won't come for free :D.
>>>>>
>>>>> The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
>>>>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem
>>>>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
>>>>> while we also work on short term solutions.
>>>
>>> Only if you haven't bothered to think how much you a re going to have to charge for each kilowatt hour of energy you sell to your customers to let you make a profit.
>>>
>>>> It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to over-regulation,
>>>> like Jeroen suggested.
>>>
>>> Then again some twenty of France's 56 nuclear reactors were all shut down for a while recently while mistakes in the original build were corrected, Nuclear plants have got more expensive recently because we've learned more about how they can go wrong. Solving problems that you can anticipate is cheaper that solving them after they've made themselves obvious, but it isn't free,
>>>
>>>> Then the word "nuclear" still spells suicide for many if not all politicians - which is the biggest problem, after decades of training the public to perceive the word like this now is pay time.
>>>
>>> It's taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing with long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated. They haven't been by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up a repository for long term storage - several hundreds of thousands of years - and they may never succeed. Not in my backyard is a potent slogan.
>>>
>>>> But we have no other sane option, we have to start building now indeed and cover by short term solutions.
>>>
>>> The Australian power generation industry doesn't see it that way. They are building new solar farms and new wind turbines at a great rate, because they produce electricity more cheaply than any other source and quite a bit more cheaply than nuclear plants. They are starting to invest grid-scale batteries, and the Australian Federal Government is in the process of extending our biggest hydroelectric scheme to offer a lot of pumped storage.
>>>
>>> https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
>>>
>>> The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels.
>>>
>> Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
>> have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
>> pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
>> the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
>> it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
>> simply because there is not as much sun.
>
> There's actually more in your summer.

No, there is not more sun - there is less sun here in summer than you
have during your winter. There are more hours of daylight (the full 24
hours for at least some of the year, once you are above the Arctic
Circle). But the power from the sun is far lower - we are at a much
steeper angle, and have a lot more cloud cover.

And even if it were true, it would be useless - batteries can give you
some stability for day to day variation of power, but not keep you going
for half the year.

> And wind power works pretty much everywhere.

It works where there is reliable wind - the tops of hills, or in the
middle of wide plains with little interruption. Australia has lots of
plains - Norway does not. So they can only be put at the tops of hills,
and even then it has to be relatively accessible hilltops (unlike most
of our hills) relatively near people and infrastructure (unlike most of
our hills). And people don't want them there.

There could certainly be more off-shore wind generation in Norway, but
even that has its challenges here. We have rather sharp slopes to deep
sea, making it more expensive than when you have shallower seas available.

(We also have a big social challenge for wind power in Norway - no one
wants to see a windmill disrupting nature hillsides or sea views.
Norwegians also do not want nuclear power stations anywhere near them,
or gas power. They want to believe that we could be self-sufficient
with cheap, clean hydroelectric power if only we stopped selling
electricity abroad, and that expensive, ugly or polluting electricity
generation is a problem for other countries. It's not true, of course,
but it's hard to convince some people.)

>
>> Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
>> Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden).
>
> You may need to do a bit more work on your mind. Nuclear power is quite a bit more expensive than wind power.
>

Nuclear power has many advantages over wind power (as well as
disadvantages). Cost in dollars is not the only measure of the best
choice of power generation. Usable land space is a premium in Norway -
nuclear takes a fraction of the space compared to wind. Accident, death
and injury rates per generated unit are negligible for nuclear power in
comparison to other methods, including wind. (The few accidents that
have occurred lead to a lot more publicity - you never year about all
the accidents involved in mounting or maintaining wind turbines.) The
impact to the environment and nature, in the way Norwegians want to see
and use their nature, would be much less with nuclear power than wind power.

Then there is the stability of the supply. For power generation, you
want a base constant stable supply, with extra generation when there are
peaks in the demand. Wind power is not stable (unless it is very high
masts out at sea), and goes up and down independently from demand.
Nuclear power (which is very stable) combined with hydroelectric (which
we have, and which can be turned up and down quickly as needed) is an
ideal combination - far better than covering half the country in
windmills and massive lithium battery arrays.

>> But solar and wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?)
>> could well be the right answer for Australia.
>
> Vanadium flow batteries seem to be correct choice on technical grounds.
>

Yes, except that vanadium is poisonous and expensive, and there is
significant energy inefficiency in the charge/discharge cycle. If
someone figured out a good basis for flow batteries that avoid these
problems, that would be good news.

The one key remaining challenge for sodium ion batteries is low number
of charge/discharge cycles. When that is solved (and I expect that to
be just a matter of time), they'll be great for grid storage.

> We've got a a Tesla lithium ion grid storage battery in South Australia simply because Elon Musk could divert a hundred electric car batteries from his production line and ship them to Australia with very little effort. The economy of scale was there already.
>
> Quite how we get to mass production with vanadium flow batteries is a more interesting question. Government intervention would work, but they'd probably spend so long working out whether it was the right choice that Elon Musk would have sewn up the market.
>

On 20/04/2022 11:14, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
>>>>> an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
>>>>> don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
>>>>> put into storage. During those times security can be increased.
>>>
>>>> What's the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years,
>>>> 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using
>>>> the electricity, right?
>>>
>>> Faulty reasoning, there.   The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly)
>>> is because one of the contaminants is
>>> plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very
>>> undesirable weapons  manufacture.
>>> If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs
>>> AND the long year-count problem
>>> alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of
>>> lethality of lead and arsenic.
>>>
>>> You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against
>>> future intrusions.
>>> That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...
>>
>> Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
>> less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
>> waste storage easier.
>>
>> I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and
>> concrete, and drop it in a lava lake.  It's far denser than lava - if
>> you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as
>> the one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and
>> mixing with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there,
>> keeping us nice and warm from below.
>>
>> (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
>> pure speculation.)
>>
>
> That doesn't look sane to me. It's likely to spew the waste all
> over the place in short order. And there isn't really a lot of
> other radioactive stuff already down there, either.
>

How would it "spew the waste" ? We don't see much lava leaking out.
The balls of waste would sink (though I don't know how deeply) before
melting apart and being spread around by currents in the mantle. The
heavy elements would gradually sink further.

(I'm not saying you are wrong, because I certainly don't know that I am
right.)

> The real solution is to hide the highly radioactive and long-
> lived waste in some uninteresting, geologically stable dry rock
> layer.
>

Certainly that's the traditional solution. The key points are to keep
enough rock between the waste and the surface to stop radiation, to
minimise the risk of getting the stuff into underground water, and to
stop people getting in to it.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:53:12 AM UTC-7, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:28:38 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
> > On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:

> > > The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
> > > plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.

> Dream on. Uranium fissions into elements with atomic weights closer to 120. Some of the fission products are stable. Lots of them are radioactive.

> Most people have heard of Cobalt-60, which also shows up in nuclear reactor waste. There are lots of others.

> > > If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
> > > alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.

> Lead and arsenic have stable isotopes which are lethal without being radioactive. Reprocessing fuel to take out the radioactive isotope waste is an expensive idea...

But that wasn't what I was suggesting; the weapons-proliferation consequence of leaving fissile material
in the waste is only sensitive to two chemical constituents of the fuel elements. Other neutron-activated
bits of reactors aren't part of the reprocessing step, so most (by tonnage) waste would be buried as-is.

On 20/04/2022 18:41, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 11:36:37 PM UTC+10, David Brown wrote:
>> On 20/04/2022 11:14, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
>>> David Brown wrote:
>>>> On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
>>>>>>> an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
>>>>>>> don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
>>>>>>> put into storage. During those times security can be increased.
>>>>>
>>>>>> What's the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years,
>>>>>> 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using
>>>>>> the electricity, right?
>>>>>
>>>>> Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly)
>>>>> is because one of the contaminants is
>>>>> plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very
>>>>> undesirable weapons manufacture.
>>>>> If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs
>>>>> AND the long year-count problem
>>>>> alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of
>>>>> lethality of lead and arsenic.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against
>>>>> future intrusions.
>>>>> That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...
>>>>
>>>> Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
>>>> less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
>>>> waste storage easier.
>>>>
>>>> I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and
>>>> concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
>>>> you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as
>>>> the one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and
>>>> mixing with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there,
>>>> keeping us nice and warm from below.
>>>>
>>>> (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
>>>> pure speculation.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> That doesn't look sane to me. It's likely to spew the waste all
>>> over the place in short order. And there isn't really a lot of
>>> other radioactive stuff already down there, either.
>>>
>> How would it "spew the waste" ? We don't see much lava leaking out.
>
> Have you never seen pictures of a volcano erupting? They can throw enough ash into the stratosphere to force airlines to cancel some flights and reroute others.
>

Lava lakes do not often erupt, and rarely do so violently - violent
eruptions come from a build-up of pressure in an enclosed magma chamber,
which you don't get with a lake open to the air.

And the whole point of this suggestion is to have the ball sink, not
hang around waiting for an overflow of lava. The big questions are how
quickly it would sink, and how deep it could get. I don't know the
answers to that, and I am quite happy to be shown that a reasoned and
factual argument for why it would not sink far enough or fail to work
for other reasons.

However, you may assume that I have read the Ladybird book on volcanoes.
I am aware that volcanoes can erupt.

> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/24/volcanic-ash-cloud-flight-delays-heathrow
>
>> The balls of waste would sink (though I don't know how deeply) before
>> melting apart and being spread around by currents in the mantle. The
>> heavy elements would gradually sink further.
>>
>> (I'm not saying you are wrong, because I certainly don't know that I am
>> right.)
>>> The real solution is to hide the highly radioactive and long-
>>> lived waste in some uninteresting, geologically stable dry rock
>>> layer.
>>>
>> Certainly that's the traditional solution. The key points are to keep
>> enough rock between the waste and the surface to stop radiation, to
>> minimise the risk of getting the stuff into underground water, and to
>> stop people getting in to it.
>
> The Australian solution was Synroc.
>
> https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc-facility
>
> I knew Lou Vance when he was an a undergraduate at Melbourne University in the 1960's. Smart guy.
>
> It concentrates on keeping the radioactive atoms locked up in insoluble rock. Apparently it would work fine, but nobody seems to be actually using it.
>

Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com> wrote in news:538754cf-ec29-458c-
90e5-7acc4f2625b2n@googlegroups.com:

> Sanctions will ruin the Russian economy.
> Putin will be overthrown.
>

Or assassinated. But yes, it will end. The shame is that it doesn't
end with a dozen bunker busters bombs penetrating and destroying the
Kremlin and the war crime stupidity once and for all.

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 1:01:33 AM UTC-4, whit3rd wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
>
> > > Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
> > > an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
> > > don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
> > > put into storage. During those times security can be increased.
>
> > What's the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using the electricity, right?
> Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
> plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.
> If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
> alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.
>
> You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against future intrusions.
> That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...

I don't believe that is true. Nuclear waste is stored onsite for longer than a few years because in the US we have no other place to store it. In fact, the US government has to pay for that on site storage because they had promised to provide a long term storage facility, and failed to do so. However...

Now that it is known there is no long term storage, will new nuclear plants be required to pay for this long term storage or will the US government (meaning all of us) have to pay for it? No wonder our taxes are so high!

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:16:33 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/04/2022 07:08, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:06:56 AM UTC+10, Dimiter Popoff wrote:
> >> On 4/20/2022 0:22, David Brown wrote:
> >>> On 19/04/2022 20:29, Dimiter_Popoff wrote:
> >>>> On 4/19/2022 20:39, John Larkin wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>>> Perhaps, but gas and petrol are short term solutions anyway. Since
> >>>> the EU (and the world) needs to do something about producing less
> >>>> smoke going seriously nuclear looks like the only viable option.
> >>>> Sort of like the French have done it. The main brake against nuclear
> >>>> has been the fear that waste can fall in the wrong hands to build
> >>>> weapons from (not the pollution nonsense the media spread for the
> >>>> masses). So more spectrometry gadgets will be needed... the steam
> >>>> engine I hope to build in my backyard won't come for free :D.
> >>>
> >>> The big problem with nuclear power is that it takes a long time to build
> >>> the plants. (Yes, the build cost is a problem too - but it's a problem
> >>> that can be solved by throwing money at it, unlike the time problem.)
> >>>
> >>> Of course we need to start building the nuclear power plants /now/,
> >>> while we also work on short term solutions.
> >
> > Only if you haven't bothered to think how much you a re going to have to charge for each kilowatt hour of energy you sell to your customers to let you make a profit.
> >
> >> It takes a long time of course but much of it is due to over-regulation,
> >> like Jeroen suggested.
> >
> > Then again some twenty of France's 56 nuclear reactors were all shut down for a while recently while mistakes in the original build were corrected, Nuclear plants have got more expensive recently because we've learned more about how they can go wrong. Solving problems that you can anticipate is cheaper that solving them after they've made themselves obvious, but it isn't free,
> >
> >> Then the word "nuclear" still spells suicide for many if not all politicians - which is the biggest problem, after decades of training the public to perceive the word like this now is pay time.
> >
> > It's taken a long time for all the problems posed by dealing with long term radio-active waste to be fully appreciated. They haven't been by any means solved. Nobody has yet set up a repository for long term storage - several hundreds of thousands of years - and they may never succeed. Not in my backyard is a potet slogan.
> >
> >> But we have no other sane option, we have to start building now indeed and cover by short term solutions.
> >
> > The Australian power generation industry doesn't see it that way. They are building new solar farms and new wind turbines at a great rate, because they produce electricity more cheaply than any other source and quite a bit more cheaply than nuclear plants. They are starting to invest grid-scale batteries, and the Australian Federal Government is in the process of extending our biggest hydroelectric scheme to offer a lot of pumped storage.
> >
> > https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/
> >
> > The nuclear option strikes me as totally insane at any number of levels..
> >
> Different power generation choices make sense in different places, and
> have different costs (not just monetary costs - space, environment and
> pollution are all costs). In Australia, solar power should be all over
> the place - you have plenty of sun, and plenty of space. Here in Norway
> it's a very different matter - solar power is much more expensive,
> simply because there is not as much sun.
>
> Nuclear power is, without any doubt in my mind, the right answer for
> Norway going forward (it works for Finland and Sweden). But solar and
> wind power combined with good grid storage (maybe sodium ion batteries?)
> could well be the right answer for Australia.

What problem do you think nuclear power is the solution to, exactly?

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 3:28:38 AM UTC-4, David Brown wrote:
> On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >
> >>> Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
> >>> an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
> >>> don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
> >>> put into storage. During those times security can be increased.
> >
> >> What's the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years, 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using the electricity, right?
> >
> > Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly) is because one of the contaminants is
> > plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very undesirable weapons manufacture.
> > If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs AND the long year-count problem
> > alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality of lead and arsenic.
> >
> > You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against future intrusions.
> > That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...
> Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
> less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
> waste storage easier.
>
> I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and
> concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
> you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as the
> one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and mixing
> with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there, keeping
> us nice and warm from below.
>
> (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
> pure speculation.)

So, you think the solution to nuclear waste is to ship it to Ethiopia? Yeah, great idea!!!

--

Rick C.

+-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 5:14:49 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
> David Brown wrote:
> > On 20/04/2022 07:01, whit3rd wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 6:38:24 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 19, 2022 at 8:02:26 PM UTC-4, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Nuclear waste can be stored in heavy containers that go down a hole to
> >>>> an underground facility. The only way to remove it is with a crane. So
> >>>> don't keep a crane nearby. One can be brought in when more material is
> >>>> put into storage. During those times security can be increased.
> >>
> >>> What's the price tag for storing that for 1,000 years, 5,000 years,
> >>> 10,000 years? You do realize this cost should be paid by those using
> >>> the electricity, right?
> >>
> >> Faulty reasoning, there. The onsite storage of waste (fuel, mostly)
> >> is because one of the contaminants is
> >> plutonium, another is enriched U235, both associated with very
> >> undesirable weapons manufacture.
> >> If one reprocessed the fuel to extract those, it'd lower fuel costs
> >> AND the long year-count problem
> >> alone is just about NOTHING when compared to the duration of lethality
> >> of lead and arsenic.
> >>
> >> You can just bury the rest, marking the site appropriately against
> >> future intrusions.
> >> That solution worked for anthrax-infected critters for over a century...
> >
> > Some of the newer high-temperature molten salt processes produce much
> > less waste, and in particular far less of the dangerous stuff, making
> > waste storage easier.
> >
> > I also wonder why we can't just wrap the stuff in a ball of steel and
> > concrete, and drop it in a lava lake. It's far denser than lava - if
> > you use a relatively low temperature and low viscosity lake such as the
> > one in Ethiopia, its going to sink far before breaking up and mixing
> > with all the other radioactive stuff that's already done there, keeping
> > us nice and warm from below.
> >
> > (No, I haven't done any research or calculations on that idea - it's
> > pure speculation.)
> >
> That doesn't look sane to me. It's likely to spew the waste all
> over the place in short order. And there isn't really a lot of
> other radioactive stuff already down there, either.
>
> The real solution is to hide the highly radioactive and long-
> lived waste in some uninteresting, geologically stable dry rock
> layer.

We could just dress it up like Alice and give it to Ralph Kramden...

Pow! Right to the moon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98qw86DsdZ0

--

Rick C.

++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209