What to do about nuclear wastes?

[Larv]

How should we dispose of high-level nuclear wastes (HLW)? Sink them? Bury them? Burn them? Or store them?

If you happen to favor expanding the use of nuclear energy, as I do, then we must make a strong case for the safe disposal of HLW. I think we can do that, but I also think we are going about it in the wrong way. DOE has chosen to bury HLW in a deep, geologic repository. Yucca Mtn is the selected site. Costly indeed! So what are all the options?

Sink them? We could do that. Just haul them out to sea and drop them into deep oceanic trenches, and cheaply, too. Once DOE actually considered this option. Energy secretary Dixie Lee Ray believed that sinking HLW into deep oceanic trenches would put them away for good, since water in these trenches is so old it is often referred to as “fossilized water.” Even decay-heating, she argued, would not disturb the relatively heavy trench water. Needless to say, her preferred method of disposal was rejected. I found her argument credible, though, even if it flew in the face of Green attitudes.

Bury them? Well, that’s what DOE has chosen to do. Sure, we can make them go away by burying them deeply inside a mountain…at great cost. But what if someday, for no foreseeable reason, those HLW somehow become a valuable resource. We will be back down there digging them up like diamonds. This may seem preposterous, but not to me.

Burn them? Yes, that may become possible, and DOE is looking into it. There are new nuke designs on the table that use liquified heavy metals as coolants. They would be capable of burning HLW, which also involves breeding fissionable transuranics at some redeemable level. Add to that, they would produce hydrogen for fuel cells. In theory there is a quadruple benefit, since electric power is also produced along the way. I think this is a great idea, except for one thing—we might be burning away something of value to future generations.

Store them? Yes, indeed. I happen to favor the concept of “monitored retrievable storage” (MRS). This involves above-ground holding facilities that allow HLW to decay at the surface, but must also be monitored and maintained for a million years or more. That’s probably more trouble than technology can fix, so it must be the burden of our social infrastructure. I can easily see Hanford as such a place, giving a new focus to this valuable site. I can also see the opposition—Downwinders will scream bloody murder! But Indian Tribes might be wise enough to see the enormous value in hosting an MRS. I think it was the Mesquite Tribe that once tried to do that and got severely ridiculed for it. Personally, I think a few MRSs would be a whole lot better for them than a bunch of gambling casinos.

I don’t think the problem of disposing HLW should have to discourage our use of nuclear energy. France is doing well with her robust use of nuclear reactors. They are generating for France what coal is generating for us, proportionately, and I do NOT see coal as an environmentally friendly source of power.

So the HLW disposal problem has complexities. Any thoughts?

—Larv

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Larv

happen to favor the concept of “monitored retrievable storage” (MRS). This involves above-ground holding facilities that allow HLW to decay at the surface, but must also be monitored and maintained for a million years or more.

A very complex issue, indeed. I wonder, though, how exactly do you propose monitoring them for a million years or more? We can barely monitor things for a decade...

I do not mean to suggest this is easy to figure out, just that this seems a blaringly strange concept to me...

[Larv]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

A very complex issue, indeed. I wonder, though, how exactly do you propose monitoring them for a million years or more? We can barely monitor things for a decade...

Yes, this certainly is a big problem—almost laughable in its magnitude. Of course we can always solve the problem like a president does who goes into an unwinable war and expects future presidents to get us out. So there is THIS precedence, at least, for passing along the infrastructural buck. I can think of others, too.

But I would say in defense of MRS that a million years of monitoring is not enough to scotch the idea—not if HLW is somehow deemed a resource in the future. So the goal would be shifted to finding ways to use this unusual material. I think that will take less than a million years. As for protecting HLW from terrorists, for example, that would have to be factored too. I'm not that daunted by the problem, though, but maybe I should be.

—Larv

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Larv

if HLW is somehow deemed a resource in the future. So the goal would be shifted to finding ways to use this unusual material.

Okay, that approach seems much more feasible. You mentioned in your introduction that you've been in the field for a while. Do you have any ideas yourself about which we could speculate, or can you share what types of uses have been proposed (and potentially even shot down) already by your peers?

[Larv]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Okay, that approach seems much more feasible. You mentioned in your introduction that you've been in the field for a while. Do you have any ideas yourself about which we could speculate, or can you share what types of uses have been proposed (and potentially even shot down) already by your peers?

First, I'll admit to only speculating on that possibility. At this point, so far as I know, there are no worthy ideas on the table. But I don't think those hypothetical resource futures are the only reason to select the MRS option (even though it is already used locally at reactor sites). I could see a large MRS facility at Hanford, for example, that would be reasonably safe and easily constructed at relatively low cost. Of course it would be only a few miles away from the Columbia River, and I'm sure some downstream communities would not welcome it. Ultimnately, such a facility would become an intense social issue—probably too intense for gaining acceptability right now.

My bottom line is that there are other HLW disposal options to consider besides Yucca Mtn. I am not very worried about our ability to safely store or dispose of HLW. What would be most helpful right now is to find ways to relieve the public's anxiety over nuclear energy; it is massively self-defeating. Electricity will be in ever higher demand when people buy more cars that can travel 40 miles on a house charge. We'll have to find a way to meet that demand. I expect that will be an important step away from oil combustion, and from wars now necessary to protect that interest.

I should also mention that I greatly prefer power conservation and the use of renewable energy resources. But when I take a close look at the whole picture of biodeisel and hydroelectric power I see some serious environmental problems. As for fusion, I'm not yet convinced it will work as we hope it will. (The best of all worlds would be a cold-fusion electric generator the size of a suitcase that produces enough electricity to power a household. All you need is a little seawater.)

—Larv

[HydrogenBond]

If there wasn't so much, I could see resurrecting and advancing the "Big Cannon" of Saddam Hussein fame. This concept was believed to be able to shoot a payload into orbit, at low cost Once there, we collect them into a bunch, and push the batch toward the sun, for permanent disposal.

Another alternative is based on the idea that the continental plates are not only rising but sinking for recycle in the mantle. We place the junk near one of these down strokes for recycle in the mantle.

The deep trench disposal is a good idea. Water is an excellent radiation shield. The technology only has to be connected to permanent containers. This is a good storage place until something more permanent can be thought up. What is cool about this is that the radiation will make the water glow. This allows zero energy light markers so we can find them, when the time comes.

I often wondered what would happen if we detonated a nuke device, underground, in a vault full of nuke waste. Maybe the stuff would be vaporized and fused into underground glass. Add the needed ingredients for the glass, before the blast, and cover the depression.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

...The deep trench disposal is a good idea. Water is an excellent radiation shield. The technology only has to be connected to permanent containers. This is a good storage place until something more permanent can be thought up. What is cool about this is that the radiation will make the water glow. This allows zero energy light markers so we can find them, when the time comes.

I like your ideas about HLW disposal. It's hard to find anyone these days who looks favorably on the deep-sea alternative. What an interesting study that would be to find out what lives nearby those glowing containers. Monsters maybe? I can imagine the day when we want to bring them back up some unforseeable reason and environmental groups object on the grounds that several species have evolved to depend upon them.

—Larv

[Masterqman]

Why don't we leave them in space?

[Cedars]

I think we need to get away from the type of plants that generate this type of waste. Creating more of what we cannot deal with now seems to be a wrong approach. This thread talks about nuke power and waste. See post #8 for the info on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor's. I was pretty impressed with the ideas behind the Pebble Bed.

Nuclear Energy? Safe or No Way!

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Cedars

I think we need to get away from the type of plants that generate this type of waste. Creating more of what we cannot deal with now seems to be a wrong approach. This thread talks about nuke power and waste. See post #8 for the info on the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor's. I was pretty impressed with the ideas behind the Pebble Bed.

Nuclear Energy? Safe or No Way!

Cedars, I wish I had found that early thread before I started this one. I urge others to read the WIRED article you refer to. Pebble bed reactors, thorium reactors, liguified heavy metal reactors, and other innovate designs are showing promise. I am optimistic that improved nuclear power can do a great deal of good for us. But can we become serious enough to re-educate the public about safe nukes and safe options for HLW disposal? I am worried that America's fascination with tabloid news and entertainment is a weak spot in our public mind. For this reason alone, siting new nukes will be difficult. The NIMBYs will be heard from, and it won't be very friendly to nuclear power...unless we re-educate them.

—Larv