Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #75045
| Message-ID | <68d333e6@news.ausics.net> (permalink) |
|---|---|
| From | not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) |
| Subject | Re: The "Standards" Game |
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.misc, alt.comp.os.windows-11 |
| References | (7 earlier) <10ac8lq$2nkob$2@dont-email.me> <68d087a6@news.ausics.net> <10ar9d9$2a86g$1@dont-email.me> <68d1d3e6@news.ausics.net> <10atuhj$2tidd$15@dont-email.me> |
| Date | 2025-09-24 09:57 +1000 |
| Organization | Ausics - https://newsgroups.ausics.net |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
In comp.os.linux.misc The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 22/09/2025 23:55, Computer Nerd Kev wrote: > >> But if the estimated numbers for SMRs are true, why now and not 60 >> years ago? Commercial companies have been building reactors for >> militaries and research organisations all that time, they could >> have started pumping out SMRs in the 1960s if it were commercially >> viable. I can accept that technology's changed to allow much lower >> construction costs and/or higher outputs, but what exactly? The >> nuclear energy industry is built on decades of broken promises, so >> without a proper explaination it's obvious to assume SMRs are just >> more of the same - under-quoted and late (if ever) delivered. >> > 60 years ago the bureaucracy was not that bad. France built a whole > fleet in a single decade. > > Perhaps the best treatise is still online. > > http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.html > Look for the part headed 'regulatory ratcheting' > Fear of all thins nuclear allowed bureaucrats to essentially raise the > cost of building a reactor to the point where it simply wasnt economic. That's an interesting analysis, from 1990, however it's undermined by the next chapter's talk of the AP600 reactor design by Westinghouse which the author highlights as an example of a reactor designed small enough to duck under the "regulatory ratcheting": "The NRC's final design certification was received in 1999 but no orders were ever placed. A large reason Westinghouse entered development of the AP1000 was to improve the economies of scale that come with larger MWe plants.[1] The more powerful AP1000 was designed to have a similar footprint but a taller containment and a power output of 1000 MWe or greater." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP600 So on to the AP1000, and: "Twelve AP1000s are currently in operation or under construction. Four are in operation at two sites in China, two at Sanmen Nuclear Power Station and two at Haiyang Nuclear Power Plant. As of 2019, all four Chinese reactors were completed and connected to the grid, and as of 2024, six more are under construction. Two are in operation at the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant near Augusta, Georgia, in the United States, with Vogtle 3 having come online in July 2023, and Vogtle 4 in April 2024. Construction at Vogtle suffered numerous delays and cost overruns. Construction of two additional reactors at Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Generating Station near Columbia, South Carolina, led to Westinghouse's bankruptcy in 2017 and the cancellation of construction at that site. It was reported in January 2025 by The Wall Street Journal and The State that Santee Cooper, the sole owner of the stored parts and unfinished construction, is exploring construction and financing partners to finish construction these two reactors. The need for large amounts of electricity for data centers is said to be the driving factor for their renewed interest. Twenty more AP1000s are currently being planned, with six in India, nine in Ukraine, three in Poland, and two in Bulgaria." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AP1000 So in short that bigger design has been a winner in China, where of course there won't be such issues with regulations, and got the interest of other countries where the rules might be more flexible, but fell in a heap when it was tried in the USA, bankrupting Westinghouse in the process. So like I say, none of this SMR idea is new. I'm sure companies can _claim_ to build/certify SMRs cheaper than whatever price tag turned everyone off Westinghouse's AP600 design. But why would the same approach work now when it didn't back then? It's likely the prices are under-quoted and the companies will fall in a heap like Westinghouse when they can't achieve the butter zone of cost and efficiency that they're aiming for. > In Britain that plus the rise in interest rates doubling the cost of > capital, plus the availability of cheap offshore gas made nuclear simply > uneconomic. > > Then of course everybody wet their knickers over 'renewables' and > everyone had every reason to block nuclear power in case it impacted > their industry. > > Renewables took the headlines., Gas did the heavy lifting. > > Then the gas started to run out, and the renewables started to get so > expensive and unreliable that people slowly realised they were heading > up shit creek without a paddle. > > The EU however, still entirely captured by Russian gas and German > windmills kept its 'renewable obligation' and despite leaving the EU, > this is still on Britain's statute books. > > Small modular reactors were then perceived as a way to cut through the > regulations, that politicians refused to simplify. > > Essentially SMRs are the response to massive regulatory overburden since > Chernobyl and Fukushima encouraged by the renewable and gas lobbies. Pehaps that's the idea of them, but I don't see why they would succeed now. The new ideas you've mentioned just aren't new. I'm glad it's still being tried, but the idea SMRs will be powering western nations in the next decade goes against all the history of nuclear power plants, big and small. >>>> The Russians have presumably "type approved" one of their >>>> icebreaker reactors for SMR use since they've had two working as a >>>> power station on a barge since 2019: >>>> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KLT-40 >>>> >>> Russians dont do approvals. They just build the fucking things, steal >>> the money and hope they dont go bang. Or if they do that its a long way >>> from Moscow and St Petersburg. >> >> Indeed, and yet _they_ can't even build them to a deadline. They >> planned to make seven of those floating SMRs by 2015, and so far >> they've only got that one, for which construction of the reactors >> began all the way back in 2007. >> > Russia is falling apart - the corruption is so endemic that they can't > even do anything any more Which is also more or less how I feel about many projects here in Australia. >>> They are well able to build a small nuclear reactor, although its likely >>> the nuclear company will be spun out in order to separate its investment >>> - high risk and very high return - from their traditional business of >>> manufacture and supply of jet engines and their spares. >> >> A high risk investment indeed, I'd say. A good stock for the people >> also investing in the various fusion start-ups, some of which claim >> they'll have working fusion reactors to sell well before Hinkley >> Point C is completely finished sometime after 2030. >> > I think actually Hinkley is nearing completion. I think it will be > online by 2030. Its first reactor might be. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RITM-200 >>>> >>>> Unless one of these SMR companies can explain the breakthrough >>>> they've made which changes the rules for how quickly and cheaply >>>> one of these reactors can be built, I'm highly skeptical. Where >>>> I've looked they all seem to explain exceptionally little of the >>>> manufacturing details, so I suspect it's all bluff. But I'd like >>>> to be surprised. >>>> >>> It is very very simple. >>> >>> There are three basic reasons why SMRs can be made much cheaper,. >>> >>> 1. The first and most important one is that they are small enough to be >>> made in a factory on a production line like a jet engine or aircraft, >>> and therefore that the design will be stable, and type approved so that >>> every power station does not have to wade through the same paperwork >>> every time. >>> >>> 2. The second one is less important but still a valuable contribution to >>> cost reduction. Below a certain size, it is possible to arrange for all >>> the decay heat following a SCRAM (emergency shutdown) to be dissipated >>> by convection only, thus eliminating the need for the emergency pumps >>> whose failure cost Fukushima its ability to contain the heat. This >>> simplifies the design considerably. And makes it much safer as well. >>> >>> 3. Because the units are relatively small, they can hopefully be sited >>> much nearer the centres of demand. And because they are run at maximum >>> power continuously, any grid links will be nearly 100% utilised. This is >>> in massive contrast to remote wind turbines or solar farms where the >>> grid connections are long, expensive and only fully used when the >>> renewable energy peaks. >> >> Yep, but those all applied decades ago, why only now does it make >> sense in a commercial environment? >> > No. All of those did NOT apply decades ago. But 1990 when that book was published and 1999 when AP600 was certified were still decades ago. > In particular when the 1960s reactors were built the regulatory > framework was very light and governments wanted them built,. The real > death knell was Germany, the Green party, proportional representation, > and Chernobyl. From what I remember "Germany" was largely a reaction to Fukushima. >> The trouble with the comparison to renewable and fossil fuel power >> is that people already build with those, so we know what they >> actually cost in the real world. Figures for SMRs just have to be >> trusted, and seeing as they come from the same industry that >> brought us projects like Hinkley Point C, who would trust them? I >> suspect "SMR" is largely just a re-branding exercise designed so >> that people _don't_ think of projects like Hinkley Point C. >> > Lol! Only a few people know what the *true* cost of renewables are > OVERALL, because if it were general knowledge there wouldn't be a single > windmill or solar panel erected ever again But there aren't _any_ people who know the *true* cost of western SMRs because they're still on the drawing board. > Rolls Royce and others are not 'rebranding' they are actually building > what everyone will be using in 20 years, unless that have been overrun > by foreign powers. > > No public money is at risk. Well I know that's true here in Australia since the public reacted to the federal opposition's public-funded national nuclear energy plan at the last election with a massive swing against them. > All they are asking from politicians is that they don't invent > any extra obstacles to put in their way. Well good luck to them, if they get that and keep to budget then I'll be very impressed. >>> In terms of ship borne reactors, a consortium of major carriers has >>> already determined that provided they were allowed to operate, nuclear >>> powered container ships would overall be cheaper than today's bunker >>> fuel powered ones. >>> >>> https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/partnership-to-develop-nuclear-power-for-shipping >> >> I'll believe that when I see it too, and yes I know it's been done >> before, but it didn't work out then. Once again I ask why now? >> Besides the SMR branding, what makes nuclear power 2.0 different to >> nuclear power 1.0 from the last century? >> > Well all your arguments boil down to 'I simply don't see what nuclear > will work when it hasn't for the last 40 years' > > And you react to any logical argument with 'I simply don't believe it' > > You asked why now? and I explained why now. If you are going to reject > that out of hand, why ask in the first place? Because I'd accept your explanations in answer to the question "Why did SMRs take over electricity production last century?", except they didn't. If the political climate changes massively then yes China shows that nuclear can be widely and somewhat quickly adopted, but I don't see how SMRs have western politics in their favour, except maybe in the USA if someone very pro-nuclear gets friendly with Trump (but he won't be in office for long enough anyway). -- __ __ #_ < |\| |< _#
Back to comp.os.linux.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: The "Standards" Game not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-22 09:17 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-22 11:46 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-22 16:05 -0400
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-23 00:07 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-23 03:03 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-23 21:03 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:35 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 15:23 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 17:30 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-23 18:03 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-23 18:29 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:17 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-09-24 18:43 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:15 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:13 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-24 03:06 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-26 23:28 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-09-22 18:17 -0600
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-23 21:23 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:37 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:21 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-23 14:31 -0700
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 01:29 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-24 02:59 +0000
Submarine testing. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 21:54 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-23 21:39 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 01:00 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 05:05 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 01:29 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 01:28 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 05:06 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 22:26 +0200
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-28 22:52 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-28 12:00 -0400
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-28 17:34 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-29 23:36 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-29 15:45 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-28 18:29 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-29 08:54 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-28 22:51 -0400
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-29 23:46 +1000
Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 22:02 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-24 15:26 -0700
Re: Opening a submarine rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-24 23:31 +0000
Re: Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:16 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 09:53 +0100
Re: Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:23 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:20 +0100
Re: Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:26 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 10:35 +0100
Re: Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-26 13:34 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 12:36 +0100
Re: Opening a submarine rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-25 17:23 +0000
Re: Opening a submarine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 22:31 +0200
Re: Opening a submarine rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:18 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-23 16:44 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-09-30 00:02 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 11:24 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-23 08:55 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-23 00:07 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 12:17 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-23 11:58 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-24 09:57 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 01:35 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Computer Nerd Kev <not@telling.you.invalid> - 2025-09-24 12:51 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 05:06 +0000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 11:41 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-24 13:49 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-24 15:21 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-25 10:10 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 10:43 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-25 13:16 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 14:09 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-26 22:01 +0100
Re: The "Standards" Game not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-26 09:35 +1000
Re: The "Standards" Game The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 10:56 +0100
Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-24 22:12 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-24 15:20 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 10:11 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-25 07:25 -0400
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 12:58 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-25 08:11 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. knuttle <keith_nuttle@yahoo.com> - 2025-09-25 13:19 -0400
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:00 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:53 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 11:10 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 19:22 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-26 20:23 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-26 17:34 -0400
Re: Nuclear plants. Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2025-09-26 16:36 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:06 -0400
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 10:51 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. Daniel70 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> - 2025-10-01 21:52 +1000
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-10-01 14:28 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. Rich <rich@example.invalid> - 2025-10-01 12:44 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-10-01 09:20 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 18:50 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-26 13:43 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 13:04 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-26 20:24 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:29 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. Pancho <Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com> - 2025-09-25 12:53 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:48 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:26 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 20:44 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 10:21 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-26 13:49 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 13:06 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-25 08:17 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 18:54 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-25 18:07 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 20:48 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:33 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 10:26 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 07:45 +0100
OT: Re: Nuclear plants. Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 10:09 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-27 02:30 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2025-09-27 10:16 +1000
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-25 13:51 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:47 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:25 -0400
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:06 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 04:56 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-25 22:52 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2025-09-26 06:47 +0000
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 11:24 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2025-09-26 09:34 -0700
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 11:23 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-26 11:22 +0100
Re: OT: Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 12:52 +0100
OT: Re: Nuclear plants. Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 10:32 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 10:00 +0100
Re: Nuclear plants. "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:33 +0200
Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:47 +0100
OT: Re: Nuclear plants. Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 09:45 +0100
Re: OT: Re: Nuclear plants. The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2025-09-27 12:36 +0100
csiph-web