On 05/02/2017 08:49, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 17:16:14 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 12:38 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 10:21:44 +0000, newshound wrote:

The great ease of detection of small amounts of radioactivity is
one of the reasons you should have more confidence in this
industry than almost any other: you can't hide a leak.

Unfortunately that doesn't help you to fix it, eg Fukushima

The leak caused no deaths and no major exposures to radiation.
761 people died as a direct result of the evacuation.

If they hadn't been evacuated, they'd be dead.


No they wouldn't!

On 05-Feb-17 8:55 AM, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 11:01:48 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
...
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

As you have been told many times before, this is a lie. The ways to
dispose of nuclear waste are well known, as are the costs. Storing the
waste is not only a solution, it is also the cheapest solution.


It's only in temporary storage.
They have no clue what to do with it now...

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 05/02/17 12:04, Nightjar wrote:
On 05-Feb-17 8:55 AM, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 11:01:48 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
...
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do
it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

As you have been told many times before, this is a lie. The ways to
dispose of nuclear waste are well known, as are the costs. Storing the
waste is not only a solution, it is also the cheapest solution.


It's only in temporary storage.
They have no clue what to do with it now...

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

In magic thinking LeftyLand it does.


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain

On 2/4/2017 7:45 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/02/17 15:23, tim... wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
news
On 03/02/17 22:25, Peter Parry wrote:
On Fri, 03 Feb 2017 20:15:20 GMT, lid (AnthonyL)
wrote:


I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Try htps://www.withouthotair.com/about.html

The definitive book on the subject and not a drop of greenwash.

Good on energy density but doesn't account for the capital costs

These are roughly - or should be - around £3m /MW with a 15%
decommissioning surcharge.

O&M is probably around 7% per annum on that, and lifetime is 50 years.

You can find info about our Nucs here (yes TNP I know you know, it's for
everybody else)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...United_Kingdom

I didn't click on them all but of all the ones I did click on, none were
in operation for more than 40 years

that 20% difference has to be critical when amortizing such mega capital
costs


Fairly sure some AGRs are over 40 yrs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyster...rating_Station

is set to do 50 years

New nuclear shouldl do even more, now teh ageing proicesses are well
understood

tim





Calder Hall didn't quite make 50 years. ISTR that some Magnox got past
40. Current generation of PWRs are targetting 60 years. It is becoming
more realistic to make long term predictions because data on radiation
embrittlement, one of the life limiting factors, is now becoming much
more available.

On 2/4/2017 12:42 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!


Vitrified high level waste is stored in air, not under water.

On 2/5/2017 9:00 AM, Richard wrote:
"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message ...

En el artículo , tim...
escribió:

the examples I found were people who died due to " The psychological
trauma
of evacuation"

that sounds to my like an indirect result of the evacuation

a direct result of the evacuation would be being crushed in the rush

I seem to have accidentally wandered into uk.d-i-y.splitting-hairs.

Yep. It's where the *real* action takes place. The splitting of hairs
done here is the envy of microtome operators everywhere.

ROFL! And quite right, too.

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:30:54 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/4/2017 12:42 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!


Vitrified high level waste is stored in air, not under water.

Temporarily stored.

On 2/5/2017 2:32 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/02/17 12:04, Nightjar wrote:
On 05-Feb-17 8:55 AM, harry wrote:
On Saturday, 4 February 2017 11:01:48 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 8:12 AM, harry wrote:
...
The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do
it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

As you have been told many times before, this is a lie. The ways to
dispose of nuclear waste are well known, as are the costs. Storing the
waste is not only a solution, it is also the cheapest solution.


It's only in temporary storage.
They have no clue what to do with it now...

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

In magic thinking LeftyLand it does.


Seems to be true in Trumpolicy too.

En el artículo ,
newshound escribió:

Vitrified high level waste is stored in air, not under water.

I think he's referring to the legacy storage ponds at Sellafield.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 2/4/2017 9:13 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 19:40:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/02/17 12:55, AnthonyL wrote:

Idle question ~ how would today's radioactive waste radiation levels
in 2000 years compare to today's radiation levels in Cornwall?
Approx.

depends in how thin you spread it.

Dumbed in the ocean no one would notice

I always thought it a mistake not to dump it in a deep ocean trench in
torpedo-shaped canisters that would drill their way into the mud
several miles down and get subducted under a tectonic plate and
disappear for ever. The Russians of course take a cavalier attitude
and just dump their old submarine reactors in the Kara Sea, and two
fingers to the environmentalists!

Has to be said that we used to dump LLW off the Bay of Biscay.

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 09:21:51 UTC, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 9:00 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 17:41:53 +0000, Nightjar wrote:


As an aside, we know, from nature, how high level radioactive waste
behaves when put into deep geological storage. About 2 billion years
ago, there was a natural nuclear fission reaction deep under what is now
Gabon. The radioactive by-products of this reaction, which, unlike man
produced high level waste, were not encapsulated in any way, have, in
all that time, managed to migrate about 10 metres into the surrounding
rocks.

I've quoted that fact myself on occasion, but in truth it would be
unwise to apply the circumstances of Oklo to every deep nuclear waste
depository. How far the elements in the radioactive waste would
migrate if they leached out of their immediate encapsulation, would
depend very much on the geology and hydrology local to that
depository.

I was under the impression that it was an area that we would consider to
be unsuitable for deep geological storage.

--

Nobody has a clue as to what constitutes good geological storage. You can read about the various failures here.
And the money wasted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_...on_Pilot_Plant

En el artículo , Richard smithski@btinter
net.com.invalid escribió:

Yep. It's where the *real* action takes place. The splitting of hairs done
here is the envy of microtome operators everywhere.



--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 10:03:34 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/02/17 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 9:00 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 17:41:53 +0000, Nightjar wrote:


As an aside, we know, from nature, how high level radioactive waste
behaves when put into deep geological storage. About 2 billion years
ago, there was a natural nuclear fission reaction deep under what is now
Gabon. The radioactive by-products of this reaction, which, unlike man
produced high level waste, were not encapsulated in any way, have, in
all that time, managed to migrate about 10 metres into the surrounding
rocks.

I've quoted that fact myself on occasion, but in truth it would be
unwise to apply the circumstances of Oklo to every deep nuclear waste
depository. How far the elements in the radioactive waste would
migrate if they leached out of their immediate encapsulation, would
depend very much on the geology and hydrology local to that
depository.

I was under the impression that it was an area that we would consider to
be unsuitable for deep geological storage.

If you read the guardian, you will be given the impression that
everywhere is unsuitable for deep geological storage.

It seems to be true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_...on_Pilot_Plant

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:39:18 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/4/2017 9:13 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 19:40:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 04/02/17 12:55, AnthonyL wrote:

Idle question ~ how would today's radioactive waste radiation levels
in 2000 years compare to today's radiation levels in Cornwall?
Approx.

depends in how thin you spread it.

Dumbed in the ocean no one would notice

I always thought it a mistake not to dump it in a deep ocean trench in
torpedo-shaped canisters that would drill their way into the mud
several miles down and get subducted under a tectonic plate and
disappear for ever. The Russians of course take a cavalier attitude
and just dump their old submarine reactors in the Kara Sea, and two
fingers to the environmentalists!

Has to be said that we used to dump LLW off the Bay of Biscay.

Lots has been dumped at many places around the UK and elsewhere.
Not without problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_...ioactive_waste

On Saturday, 4 February 2017 12:42:28 UTC, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!

Another failed storage project for you to consider.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine

On 05/02/17 20:01, Chris Hogg wrote:
So any high-level waste that gets into the sea by whatever route,
(leaky reactors, purposed disposal etc) is going to be trivial
compared to the radiation that's there already, as discussed recently
in another thread.

Ah, bu *man made* radiation is *so* much more dangerous! Except when you
have cancer, of course.

The Leftymind don't do *logic*. It runs on *emotion*.


--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

On 04/02/2017 22:19, Fredxxx wrote:
I agree, where the cost of decommissioning will be paid for by our
children and our children's children does tend to attract politicians'
concerns.

It's odd that. Usually they can't see past the next election.

Andy

On 05/02/2017 08:49, harry wrote:
If they hadn't been evacuated, they'd be dead.

One or two people wouldn't leave, and the cleanup workers definitely
stayed behind. They seem to be alive... for example

http://www.neatorama.com/pet/2013/10...doned-Animals/

AKA

http://tinyurl.com/janqt39

Andy

On 05/02/2017 18:39, harry wrote:
Nobody has a clue as to what constitutes good geological storage. You can read about the various failures here.
And the money wasted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_...on_Pilot_Plant

That nuclear _weapons_ waste dump seems to be in operation now. Looks
like they are fairly happy about it.

Andy

On 05/02/2017 18:44, harry wrote:
Lots has been dumped at many places around the UK and elsewhere.
Not without problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_...ioactive_waste

Major problems, I agree. Not.

"According to one official at the United Nations, this caused health
problems for locals in the coastal region and posed a significant danger
to Somalia's fishing industry and local marine life"

Reading the BBC report which is the source of that, "Some firms have
been dumping waste off Somalia's coast for years" the waste concerned
was "radioactive chemicals, heavy metals, medical waste.. you name it"

I doubt many firms have access to nuclear power station waste.

Andy

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 10:03:34 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 05/02/17 09:21, Nightjar wrote:
On 04-Feb-17 9:00 PM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 4 Feb 2017 17:41:53 +0000, Nightjar wrote:


As an aside, we know, from nature, how high level radioactive waste
behaves when put into deep geological storage. About 2 billion years
ago, there was a natural nuclear fission reaction deep under what is
now
Gabon. The radioactive by-products of this reaction, which, unlike
man
produced high level waste, were not encapsulated in any way, have, in
all that time, managed to migrate about 10 metres into the
surrounding
rocks.

I've quoted that fact myself on occasion, but in truth it would be
unwise to apply the circumstances of Oklo to every deep nuclear waste
depository. How far the elements in the radioactive waste would
migrate if they leached out of their immediate encapsulation, would
depend very much on the geology and hydrology local to that
depository.

I was under the impression that it was an area that we would consider
to
be unsuitable for deep geological storage.

If you read the guardian, you will be given the impression that
everywhere is unsuitable for deep geological storage.

It seems to be true.

Nope, most obviously with the deep geological places
some of it comes from the in first place. Thats one obvious
place where it clearly stayed fine for millennia already,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_...on_Pilot_Plant

On 2/5/2017 6:39 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo ,
newshound escribió:

Vitrified high level waste is stored in air, not under water.

I think he's referring to the legacy storage ponds at Sellafield.

Which are in the process of being cleaned up. The other ponds contain
spent fuel, *not* reprocessed waste.

On 2/5/2017 6:33 PM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:30:54 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/4/2017 12:42 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!


Vitrified high level waste is stored in air, not under water.

Temporarily stored.

And the slag heaps, and coal spoil tips, these are temporary stores (or
rather dumps), too.

On 05/02/17 22:48, newshound wrote:
On 2/5/2017 6:33 PM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:30:54 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/4/2017 12:42 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!


Vitrified high level waste is stored in air, not under water.

Temporarily stored.

And the slag heaps, and coal spoil tips, these are temporary stores (or
rather dumps), too.

Bigot.


--
"Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They
always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them"

Margaret Thatcher

On 05/02/2017 20:41, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 04/02/2017 22:19, Fredxxx wrote:
I agree, where the cost of decommissioning will be paid for by our
children and our children's children does tend to attract politicians'
concerns.

It's odd that. Usually they can't see past the next election.

There are still clean-up operations going on from nuclear waste from the
50s.

Yes, I would generally agree with you.

I think nuclear option is the right way to go, but saying the waste
issue is completely solved is only in apologist's dreams.

Fredxxx wrote
Vir Campestris wrote
Fredxxx wrote

I agree, where the cost of decommissioning will be paid for by our
children and our children's children does tend to attract politicians'
concerns.

It's odd that. Usually they can't see past the next election.

There are still clean-up operations going on from nuclear waste from the
50s.

Thats from nuclear weapon production, not power generation.

Yes, I would generally agree with you.

I think nuclear option is the right way to go, but saying the waste issue
is completely solved is only in apologist's dreams.

Wrong with the waste from power generation. That has been
completely solved with breeders. Its just that currently its cheaper
to keep digging up more uranium than consuming it all in breeders.
The problem has been completely solved tho, just not implemented yet.

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 22:49:01 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/5/2017 6:33 PM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:30:54 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/4/2017 12:42 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!


Vitrified high level waste is stored in air, not under water.

Temporarily stored.

And the slag heaps, and coal spoil tips, these are temporary stores (or
rather dumps), too.

True.
Most have been dealt with.
At vast expense.
People in the past kicking a problem into the long grass.
Nothing changes much. Transferring costs on to the taxpayer.

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 22:47:49 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/5/2017 6:39 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo ,
newshound escribió:

Vitrified high level waste is stored in air, not under water.

I think he's referring to the legacy storage ponds at Sellafield.

Which are in the process of being cleaned up. The other ponds contain
spent fuel, *not* reprocessed waste.

Cleaned up by transferring to another temporary store.

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 21:00:09 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/02/2017 18:44, harry wrote:
Lots has been dumped at many places around the UK and elsewhere.
Not without problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_...ioactive_waste

Major problems, I agree. Not.

"According to one official at the United Nations, this caused health
problems for locals in the coastal region and posed a significant danger
to Somalia's fishing industry and local marine life"

Reading the BBC report which is the source of that, "Some firms have
been dumping waste off Somalia's coast for years" the waste concerned
was "radioactive chemicals, heavy metals, medical waste.. you name it"

I doubt many firms have access to nuclear power station waste.

Andy

Stuff has been dumped off theUK coast too.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-...ioactive-waste

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 21:00:09 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/02/2017 18:44, harry wrote:
Lots has been dumped at many places around the UK and elsewhere.
Not without problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_...ioactive_waste

Major problems, I agree. Not.

"According to one official at the United Nations, this caused health
problems for locals in the coastal region and posed a significant danger
to Somalia's fishing industry and local marine life"

Reading the BBC report which is the source of that, "Some firms have
been dumping waste off Somalia's coast for years" the waste concerned
was "radioactive chemicals, heavy metals, medical waste.. you name it"

I doubt many firms have access to nuclear power station waste.

Andy

http://www1.american.edu/TED/SELLA.HTM

"harry" wrote in message
...

On Sunday, 5 February 2017 22:47:49 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/5/2017 6:39 PM, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo ,
newshound escribió:

Vitrified high level waste is stored in air, not under water.

I think he's referring to the legacy storage ponds at Sellafield.

Which are in the process of being cleaned up. The other ponds contain
spent fuel, *not* reprocessed waste.

Cleaned up by transferring to another temporary store.

FFS, everywhere is a temporary store eventually.

On 06-Feb-17 8:07 AM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 21:00:09 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/02/2017 18:44, harry wrote:
Lots has been dumped at many places around the UK and elsewhere.
Not without problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_...ioactive_waste

Major problems, I agree. Not.

"According to one official at the United Nations, this caused health
problems for locals in the coastal region and posed a significant danger
to Somalia's fishing industry and local marine life"

Reading the BBC report which is the source of that, "Some firms have
been dumping waste off Somalia's coast for years" the waste concerned
was "radioactive chemicals, heavy metals, medical waste.. you name it"

I doubt many firms have access to nuclear power station waste.

Andy

Stuff has been dumped off theUK coast too.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-...ioactive-waste

If you read the article properly, you would see that the Channel Islands
referred to are off the coast of California.

--
--

Colin Bignell

On 06/02/17 09:51, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Feb-17 8:07 AM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 21:00:09 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/02/2017 18:44, harry wrote:
Lots has been dumped at many places around the UK and elsewhere.
Not without problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_...ioactive_waste

Major problems, I agree. Not.

"According to one official at the United Nations, this caused health
problems for locals in the coastal region and posed a significant danger
to Somalia's fishing industry and local marine life"

Reading the BBC report which is the source of that, "Some firms have
been dumping waste off Somalia's coast for years" the waste concerned
was "radioactive chemicals, heavy metals, medical waste.. you name it"

I doubt many firms have access to nuclear power station waste.

Andy

Stuff has been dumped off theUK coast too.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-...ioactive-waste

If you read the article properly, you would see that the Channel Islands
referred to are off the coast of California.

The was a schemozzle when we used to dump stuff in the Irish sea, but
Ireland objected...


--
If I had all the money I've spent on drink...
...I'd spend it on drink.

Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End)

On 06/02/17 10:07, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 06-Feb-17 8:07 AM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 21:00:09 UTC, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 05/02/2017 18:44, harry wrote:
Lots has been dumped at many places around the UK and elsewhere.
Not without problems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_...ioactive_waste

Major problems, I agree. Not.

"According to one official at the United Nations, this caused health
problems for locals in the coastal region and posed a significant
danger
to Somalia's fishing industry and local marine life"

Reading the BBC report which is the source of that, "Some firms have
been dumping waste off Somalia's coast for years" the waste concerned
was "radioactive chemicals, heavy metals, medical waste.. you name it"

I doubt many firms have access to nuclear power station waste.


http://articles.latimes.com/1989-07-...ioactive-waste

If you read the article properly, you would see that the Channel
Islands referred to are off the coast of California.

Ha ha ha. And there was me thinking that harry is a temporary store for
intelligence.

Even harry should have been able to figure out that the Channel Islands
in question are off the California coast, given that this is the Los
Angeles Times we are talking about.

You don't understand the LeftyMind.

When challenged by reality, it enters a suitable phrase into google that
it hopes will elecity some piece of writing that supports its worldview.

It doesn't read it, nor does it expect anyone else will.

The game is to appear to be authoritative and knowledgeable. Not to
actually be so. That is beyond it.

As I showed with thread about Darwin, the Leftymind does not think for
itself, it is constantly searching for the One True Word of Science
(rather than God, as that's been made unfashionable) from any
'authoritative' source that appears credible to it. Because the
terrifying truth that it *cannot* think for itself, but must always rely
on received wisdom from someone else, means that its whole life is
dedicated to finding out who to accept that wisdom from! And of course,
it cannot distinguish fact from fiction, so it simply goes with the
crowd, which is why '97% consensus' resonates with these people. And
because they are crowd based, that's why they use the ad hominem attack
so often.

They are so desperate to be part of some sort of group intelligentsia,
that they cannot conceive that people exist who are so confident of
their own knowledge that they couldn't give a **** how many people are
upset by it.

Just to show the technique, for harry, to put his mind at rest here is
conclusive proof that nuclear weapons have never existed

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sULjMjK5lCI

Meanwhile for those who like to struggle with difficult concepts and
really think about stuff, here's some bedtime reading, by a man whose
understanding of the intellectual baselessness of LeftyThinking is peerless.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Fools-Fraud.../dp/1408187337


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

En el artículo , Nightjar
escribió:

If you read the article properly, you would see that the Channel Islands
referred to are off the coast of California

Heh. Egg, meet Harry's face. Harry's face, meet egg.

Some low-level stuff was dumped at Dalgety Bay:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalget...ioactive_waste

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15834582

https://www.sepa.org.uk/regulations/...s/dalgety-bay-
updates/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

On 2/6/2017 8:02 AM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 22:49:01 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/5/2017 6:33 PM, harry wrote:
On Sunday, 5 February 2017 18:30:54 UTC, newshound wrote:
On 2/4/2017 12:42 PM, mechanic wrote:
On Sat, 04 Feb 2017 09:33:34 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of
dealing with the nuclear waste.

You keep saying this but it's a lie.

That seems a bit harsh.

This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to
do it.

Yes they do and its being done.

No long term repository identified in the UK yet. Parking tonnes of
waste in swimming pools doesn't seem like a good long term solution.
"its being done" seems a trifle optimistic!


Vitrified high level waste is stored in air, not under water.

Temporarily stored.

And the slag heaps, and coal spoil tips, these are temporary stores (or
rather dumps), too.

True.
Most have been dealt with.
At vast expense.
People in the past kicking a problem into the long grass.
Nothing changes much. Transferring costs on to the taxpayer.

Dealt with how, please? Only a small fraction of the toxic organic
material might have been incinerated. Where they have been made to
"disappear", it is only by sticking them in a hole in the ground and
covering it over.

On 04/02/2017 08:12, harry wrote:
On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

That temporary storage serves two important purposes. For instance, the
Magnox swarf that remains after the fuel is decanned has spent decades
in temporary storage in water filled silos. That reduces the level of
activity over time and also allows the swarf to corrode into a sludge
that can be dealt with far more easily.

SteveW

Are I love the word Sludge, so descriptive.
The whole issue of radiation is a thorny one. If we had a means of removing
the material which is in effect unstable and decaying from the rest of the
material then we might be getting somewhere.
Maybe much like food packaging we need to aim for a fuel pure enough not to
leave any waste or at least to leave something we can use behind.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
news
On 04/02/2017 08:12, harry wrote:
On Friday, 3 February 2017 20:15:22 UTC, AnthonyL wrote:
I'm a bit out of my depth in an argument I'm having with someone on
the viability of nuclear energy production.

They are arguing that the green argument is false because of the cheap
uranium processing that keeps greenhouse gasses in the southern
hemisphere and the massive energy requirement to build a power station
in the first place.

I know the energy densities of the fuels are massive compared to
fossil but need some help in countering the argument, with facts.

Thanks

--
AnthonyL

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing
with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

That temporary storage serves two important purposes. For instance, the
Magnox swarf that remains after the fuel is decanned has spent decades in
temporary storage in water filled silos. That reduces the level of
activity over time and also allows the swarf to corrode into a sludge that
can be dealt with far more easily.

SteveW

On 3/7/2017 7:10 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
Are I love the word Sludge, so descriptive.
The whole issue of radiation is a thorny one. If we had a means of removing
the material which is in effect unstable and decaying from the rest of the
material then we might be getting somewhere.

It's been done. For example, the Enhanced Actinide Removal Plant.
Section 4.11 in this link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield



Maybe much like food packaging we need to aim for a fuel pure enough not to
leave any waste or at least to leave something we can use behind.
Brian


How about Unicorn droppings?

On 3/7/2017 8:36 AM, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Tue, 7 Mar 2017 00:24:48 +0000, Steve Walker
wrote:

On 04/02/2017 08:12, harry wrote:

The nuclear energy costs the industry likes toignore is that of dealing with the nuclear waste.
This is unquantified (though huge) because they don't know how to do it.
If they did, they'd be doing it but they aren't.
It is just in temporary storage at the moment.

That temporary storage serves two important purposes. For instance, the
Magnox swarf that remains after the fuel is decanned has spent decades
in temporary storage in water filled silos. That reduces the level of
activity over time and also allows the swarf to corrode into a sludge
that can be dealt with far more easily.

SteveW

I'm surprised that sludge is easier to deal with than swarf,
radioactive or otherwise. I would have expected the opposite. Do you
speak from experience and inside knowledge, or is it just something
you read somewhere?


You perhaps don't realise that the swarf is a magnesium alloy. It's a
bit difficult to get alight, but once you get it going, it burns very
well. Actually some of the swarf storage has been in dry concrete
"vaults", these need fire detection and suppression systems. Wet storage
is less problematic provided care is taken to vent hydrogen.

The swarf inevitably contains some radioactive dust. Keeping it wet
means it doesn't become airborn.

Also, when it is under a few feet of water that provides very effective
radiation shielding against gamma, so you can approach it, and
electronics in TV cameras or other instrumentation don't degrade.

A pilot system at one station bubbled carbon dioxide (readily available,
as it is the reactor coolant) into the system, the increased acidity
speeds up the corrosion of the metal into "sludge".