Electrical Components

I think this is the new glassification process to store spent nuclear rods. It turned out to be a little pricier than earlier anticipated.

Nuclear power generation is going to save our butts for the future of this world.

Frankly, it wouldn't be difficult to simply ship nuclear waste via rocket to somewhere in outer space. This sounds like a good project for NASA. They could use one.

The only problem is that there is a chance for the rocket to explode and spread the nuclear contamination into populated areas.

tfAmerican:

I suggest you watch a little known TV series from the '70's called Space 1999.

You won't want to shoot anything out into space and make it someone else's problem after watching this.

This is an Engineering site!!!! Let's come up with some better ideas than this.

Would it be possible to strap the nuclear waste to nuclear test bomb and annilate it in the blast? Would that put radioactive fallout into the atmosphere?

If they are still producing heat, why don't we use them to spin turbines on a smaller scale?

I noticed a Guest's suggestion: 'If they are still producing heat, why don't we use them to spin turbines on a smaller scale?'

I've wondered that for a while. If nuclear waste can be made chemically and mechanically stable at about 300 degrees C, why not use it to run a steam turbine? The electricity produced could offset the cost of the waste repository.

In any case, 75.6 billion dollars is only about 250 dollars per American. Spread over 10 years that's only 25 dollars per year. That's affordable.

I don't like the idea of sending it into space, for the same reason that several people stated: That if it goes wrong, it's a big dirty bomb.

I'm not a nuclear engineer but time and again throughout history, the "junk" or "waste" of one generation has been the feedstock of the next. Why not just Keep It Simple Stupid and build a thick concrete slab in a valley in outback Nevada with a pair of fences around it with a dense mine field to keep out the idiots. Remote controlled tractors or material handlers could move the waste into position and monitor it. Perhaps the waste could be placed into evacuated stainless steel containers and if a leak is detected, it could be placed into a larger container and re-evacuated. The overhead of such a system would be relatively low and the material would be readily available when the science and engineering figures out how to safely use the stuff for heating our houses or something like that.

Mushroom field, eh ?

I didn't think that Canadian engineering was limited to the four corners of a TV screen.

As another blogger stated, rocketing nuclear waste to the Sun is a good idea and my opinion is that it wouldn't be that difficult. Firing off with enough power to overcome the Earth's gravity to the Sun, and then allowing the Sun's gravitational pull to take over should do the job.

Then it's the Sun's problem.

Of course this is an Engineering site, and with over forty-five years experience, I'll wager that I've been in more nuclear power plants than you've seen.

Now it's your turn; and don't forget that necessity is the mother of invention.

How bout some facts please.

How many tons of waste are we talking about?

The billions for yucca will pale in comparison to the cost of sending it into space!

Glassification sounds like a possibility, anything that locks up the waste in an inert form would make nuclear look alot better.

increased efficency is still where big gains will be made.

We should reprocess the spent fuel, and deplete more of it, then storage will be easier.

I have been proposing for more than 30 years that Radioactive waste be fired into space in a trajectory that will send it into the sun.

It would cost less than building and maintaining all these storage facilities.

Mr. Berry, it's a great thought, but let's think about it for a sec. ... Blasting this waste to the sun. Sounds great. O.k., what's the success factor in rockets blasting off from earth? Remember Challenger? Please remember that 'any' potential hazards related to nuclear fuel/radiation/power must be thought out very carefully. Let's postulate launching a bunch of 'DIRTY' spent fuel off the ground in a rocket. Then the rocket blows up above Florida (or wherever).

NOW ... that's a BIG dirty bomb that will be in our jet streams and will travel all around the world. All scenarios most be postulated.

Trust me about sending spent fuel up in a rocket. The risk is too great. Sending fuel to outer space will never happen in our lifetime.

We desperately need nuclear power and we need Yucca Mountain. You have two choices. One is dependence on carbon-based energy and the other is nuclear. Those are the only two that are abundant enough, and are sustainable enough to power the world. At this stage, and for the forseeable future, there is NO other alternative.

If you are educated about nuclear, as you seem to be, then you may agree; Our basic problem is that us humans keep having more and more babies (way too many). That means we need more and more power. If you cut the power off to the grid, then the economy will crash and we will be back living in the stone ages. Nuclear is the greenest form of energy available in the quantities required. We have no choice. Anti-nuclear protesters are accomplishing nothing more than running the bill up for all of us. I am an environmentalist, but I'm also a design engineer in the Nuclear Power Industry. I have chosen the lessor of evils.

Albert Einstein Quote: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Why dispose of it in the pristine Nevada Desert. It comes from Colorado originally, send it back to Colorado, Just fly over and spread in thinly across the state, and it will be unnoticeable against the natural background radiation. Current policy seems to be a huge lo0ng term remediation of Colorado.

Having worked in the Yucca Mountain project on two occasions, I offer the following observations:

1. The estimated cost of the project keeps increasing because of continuously-increasing requirements imposed by the sponsor, D. O. E. , in response to intervenors' objections on mostly non-technical (political) grounds.

2. While the geology of the Yucca Mountain region of NV has been well-characterized and is suitable for the intended purpose, many inhabitants of near-by Las Vega (i.e. the owners of the casinos) have a vested interest in keeping the Repository from ever being activated (fears of decreased business from citizens with $$$ to lose at the gaming tables). As long as Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is considered to be "in the pocket"
of the gaming interests, the YuccaaMountain project will be under-funded, over-managed, and never completed.

Ed: Very informative, and sounds like a typical DOE job. Was an equipment subcontractor on nuke jobs in the past, so I guess the inept fumbling around hasn't changed.

Do you have any comments on the Bechtel job up in Washington to implement the glassification process ? Originally, this sounded like the hot set up.

I still think my idea of sending nuclear waste off into outer space could work.

Yes. It sounds easy to send waste into the Sun. But how much waste are we talking about? Tons? Radioactive materials are not in the lightweight category. It could be a problem to build rockets strong enough to carry reasonable amount.

I thought some one was working on a superconducting rail gun for geting the stuff to orbit then joinit all to gather and sendit on a nice slow trip to the sun just a couple boosters and point it.

Hi guys all:

Nuclear power comprises some other processes in which fission is not involved.

Of course I think waste comprising long half life period isotopes is perhaps the Achilles heel and I've thought also in throwing the wastes to the sun. Even I've heard some "echologist" claiming about the "contamination" of sun in this case.

Anyway I think with the actual state of art that future of nuclear power is in fusion.

And about the waste already produced, transmutation could be a better solution than deep storage or launching rockets.

Note: this is a response to all of the forgoing discussion.

It's not clear here what's wrong with geological storage, where past geological time ground behavior can be used to predict containment over the required decay periods.

One thing about radioactive material compared to toxic non-actinide heavy metal that we routinely disposition near surface. At least the former has a half life.

Total US spent fuel will be on the order of 100,000+ metric tonnes. Using geosynchronous orbit cost of on the order of $10,000 per metric pound, and 2000 metric pounds per metric tonne, the cost to launch all of it would be 2 trillion dollars.

At about 5 metric tonnes per launch (heavy vehicle), 20,000 launches would be required. Given history, it seem guaranteed that there would be multiple failures, though some re-entry protection might be engineered in.

With isotope separation, actinide burning, near surface disposal of depleted uranium (which is where it came from) and geologic storage of the balance, the demand is far less, but geologic storage is still far safer.

I feel that storage of nuclear waste is a significant opportunity to whoever takes first advantage of it.

As an engineer from Saskatchewan, Canada (where we mine a fair percentage of the world's uranium), I wish that our own government would step up and use/upgrade old mine sites to be storage facilities. The ground where we mined the uranium from has been stable for the last billion years or so. Give us the $80-90 billion, as well as an annual maintenance fee of a billion or 2 more, and we'll store your waste for you.

The mines' geographical locations are in remote areas of our province, making a natural barrier to theft or terrorism. A few billion could be used to create and maintain a strong military presence in the area, ready to respond to any threat. A few more billion could be used to create a scientific center of excellence, where the waste is studied, and we create reactor designs that can re-use the waste as fuel.

Once the natural uranium supply begins to run out, we re-open the old mines, and re-sell the used fuel, along with our new reactors, to the people who paid us to take it from them. Then, after they've used that fuel up, we could take it again (for another fee) and put it back where we got it from.

Guest, very sound thinking and sound business sense.

Please identify yourself to the rest of the group especially tfAmerican.

He says he has 45 years experience in the nuclear field. I think he should

take some notes from you. A CANADIAN.

Good Job.

Let's have more sound ideas like this.

I agree with you guys and I'm from south of the border (U.S.A.). If the Canadian government bureaucracy is less of an obstacle than the U.S. bureaucracy, then let's do what it takes to get it done!! Down here, sometimes you think that the delays related to Washington bureaucrats are beneficial to the constructors because the price keeps escalating and a lot of people are mopping up profit off of the inept system we have. I still think that geological storage is the best option of all. AND, there's no reason why future generations can not access the stored fuels many years down the road and use it for whatever purpose neccessary. GET IT DONE ... SOMEBODY ... Our taxes are escalating into the billions because of ignorance and indecisiveness.

I like the Canadian Guest's idea of putting waste back into old mines.

Here is another geological disposal idea. Use old nuclear subs (or other purpose designed containers). fill them with long half life waste (after reprocessing). Place them in borreholes in subduction zones in the deep oceanic trenches. Nature will proceed to bury them for many half lives.

There are technical challenges, of course, but not as many as the solar burial idea, and if an accident should occur, then the dilution into water of the world's oceans will take care of the pollution.