Nuclear Energy? Safe or No Way!

[GAHD]

yeah, You should also look into lead-cooled "hot" reactors. Wastes are much more radioactive but have a much shorter half-life too. Also when the reactor is finished with it's load,the lead cools and sets-up turning the reactor core into the cointainment vessel for that same waste.

[Cedars]

Interesting article Boerseun. Lots of info about things I had no idea existed. I would like to see more after some of this is online for awhile. It makes alot of good sense and seems to hold much less danger.

I am torn between the good and bad about nuclear power. Its the waste that concerns me the most, rather than possible meltdown (cherynobol aside).

Someone did give me examples of how little waste is generated by nuke facilities, I wish I could remember exactly what he said. While he was explaining to me how this worked with Minnesota plants, I had previously imagined thousands and thousands of gallons of waste and that was simply not true.

[Racoon]

Originally Posted by Cedars

I am torn between the good and bad about nuclear power. Its the waste that concerns me the most,

Someone did give me examples of how little waste is generated by nuke facilities, I wish I could remember exactly what he said. While he was explaining to me how this worked with Minnesota plants, I had previously imagined thousands and thousands of gallons of waste and that was simply not true.

Here is some info on Hanford.
The way Not to do it! ie. Single Shell Carbon Steel Tanks!
177 tanks near the Columbia River!

Of course, Hanford is where we processed the Plutonium to drop the bomb on Nagasaki.

Current events:
http://www.Hanfordwatch.org

History:http://www.environmentaleducationohi...s/hanford.html

[ronthepon]

I know that its rude to jump into a conversation like this but I gotta say something when nuclear reactors are being discussed.

Originally Posted by Cedars

Someone did give me examples of how little waste is generated by nuke facilities, I wish I could remember exactly what he said. While he was explaining to me how this worked with Minnesota plants, I had previously imagined thousands and thousands of gallons of waste and that was simply not true.

The thing is, that though nuke waste may be a real small amount, the waste is very very radioactive and thus very dangerous.
All the info i've ever seen just points to the fact that though low to even medium scale usage of nuke fuel can be done at the rate it is for some time. But there is no easy method to dispose of nuclear waste on a large scale.

I think that the world should bring the focus on this topic to a much higher level.

PS: I cant wait for viable fusion reactors

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by ronthepon

I know that its rude to jump into a conversation like this but I gotta say something when nuclear reactors are being discussed.

The thing is, that though nuke waste may be a real small amount, the waste is very very radioactive and thus very dangerous.
All the info i've ever seen just points to the fact that though low to even medium scale usage of nuke fuel can be done at the rate it is for some time. But there is no easy method to dispose of nuclear waste on a large scale.

I think that the world should bring the focus on this topic to a much higher level.

PS: I cant wait for viable fusion reactors

Its not rude at all, its the way information is shared.

I know nuke waste is dangerous, but I wonder if the picture the public has in their head is the same I had. Up until my conversations with this person, I imagined vast amounts of waste rather than an amount (after years and years of use) that fit into an area no bigger than a few swimming pools (I cant remember exactly what he said but 3 swimming pools comes into mind). Another piece I cannot remember exactly is if the total area used was 3 swimming pools, including the concrete/lead/whatever containers to hold the waste.

People hear the words Mountain to store waste, etc... and I wonder if the picture in their head is the same I held. That the whole mountain is hollowed out and filled to the brim with this waste, so to speak.

So anyways, after learning the bit I did about this part of the issue, I couldnt help but being brought into the opinion of we need to explore this further, rather than the we gotta stop this now camp I had been in.

[Kayra]

Originally Posted by ronthepon

I know that its rude to jump into a conversation like this but I gotta say something when nuclear reactors are being discussed.



The thing is, that though nuke waste may be a real small amount, the waste is very very radioactive and thus very dangerous.
All the info i've ever seen just points to the fact that though low to even medium scale usage of nuke fuel can be done at the rate it is for some time. But there is no easy method to dispose of nuclear waste on a large scale.

I think that the world should bring the focus on this topic to a much higher level.

PS: I cant wait for viable fusion reactors

Not rude at all. The more people that discuss an issue, the more we all learn on the subject.

Sadly, reprocessing the ore does not reduce the problem of waste, it only exacerbates it

The waste from the reactors is typically drastically more radioactive then the fuel, and contains new elements that are particularly nasty.

Reprocessing the ore involves dissolving the fuel pellets in acid to recover the old elements of uranium and plutonium, leaving behind a slurry of drastically more radioactive material that has 100 to 100,000 more volume.

Several solutions are on the horizon. 2 of note (I can not find the darned articles now )

Encasement: one company has created a lithic matrix (rock) that is non-porous, easy to create from a slurry, and will easily last the lifetime of the radioactive material. If the system works (and preliminary tests are positive) then we can effectively create a sort of radioactive concrete that, once set, permanently stores the material and keeps it out of the environment. Even physically breaking the material up does not release it into the environment. It looks to me like the pebble bed reactor is basically starting off by embedding the fuel in a similar matrix. long term storage of that waste should be relatively trivial.

Neutron Bombardment?: I think this was the second type, but am not certain anymore. The basic premise was that if you bombard the material with neutrons, you could stabilize the waste, and reduce the radioactivity to the point where it was less dangerous then the ore it came from. I do not know how much of this was hype, but the company had claimed they were were going to release their breakthrough process sometime near the end of 2006.
If they can pull it off, they will pretty much have a lock on a technology everyone will demand. I only wish I could find that darned article


Fusion Reactors:
Sadly, they will also have radioactive waste. Fusion creates a large amount of neutron flux, which changes the structure of the massive reactor itself into a radioactive material over time. Tritium is also used in the process, and is rarer element then deuterium.

I have my own ideas on what our future power will come from, but until we can master the manipulation of graphene, nuclear power will be the inevitable future power of mankind. At least it is an industry held accountable for all of the impacts it has on us, unlike coal or most forms of renewable energy.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Of course, we could always just launch it into the Sun. Not going to bother anyone there.

I'm actually only half joking. What is the lifetime cost of storing spent nuclear fuel for 50,000 years or whatever, vs the cost of launching into a position where it will take a nice tumble into the solar systems ultimate incinerator? Even given that we need to develop the launch system to do so?

TFS

[Kayra]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

Of course, we could always just launch it into the Sun. Not going to bother anyone there.

I'm actually only half joking. What is the lifetime cost of storing spent nuclear fuel for 50,000 years or whatever, vs the cost of launching into a position where it will take a nice tumble into the solar systems ultimate incinerator? Even given that we need to develop the launch system to do so?

TFS

US alone generates 3,000 tons a year of the stuff, and has a stockpile of 60,000 tons

I wonder how much the rest of the world produces.

I would also bet that there would be a LOT of resistance to putting nuclear waste on a space shuttle

Now, it would be the PERFECT sollution if we had a space elevator in place. (go go Graphene).

Hoist it up, give it s cheap disposable engine (perhaps one that will run on nuclear waste ) and point it in the right direction.

[P-man]

I must say, I cna't wait for fusion reactors either but NUCLEAR IS THE WAY TO GO!

[Pyrotex]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

Of course, we could always just launch it into the Sun. Not going to bother anyone there....

I know that sounds like a good idea, but it is far more difficult to do than you might imagine.

To get a rocket to fall into the Sun, you have to negate its orbital velocity around the Sun. At least, you must negate enough so that the resulting ellipse will intersect the outer atmosphere of the Sun. But at the orbit of the Earth where we are, you would have to negate 95% or more of the orbital velocity -- OR, you would just have the rocket go into a tight cometary ellipse that would zoom close around the Sun, and several months later would return to the vicinity of the Earth's orbit !!!!!!

The idea of dumping radioactive waste into the Sun has been investigated before. No matter what the cargo, an intercept with the Sun is one of the most difficult trajectories you can do! That is, it takes a ridiculous amount of fuel. It would be easier to shoot the stuff out of the Solar System entirely.