What to Do with Nuclear Waste?

yes indeed a very astute observation, any energy brake through or change to the distribution or production will be phased in very slowly, glaciers may move forward faster in fact. Just look at the ripple effect from the first gulf war that is continuing to spread to this day.

international affairs and indeed a very interesting study, the smallest moves in the poorest countries can have disastrous effects world wide. Look at North Korea for example. If the Koreas were to be reunited the economy of the south would collapse under the weight of supporting it's poor relative in the north. the loss of even that relatively small economy would cause a world wide depression deeper than the one we are now experiencing.

Scary thought indeed.

the above greek author is correct if there is no money to be made it is not a happening thing, A long tine ago there was a guy named TESSLA he wanted to electrofy the world for free and because there was no money in it we now pay for electricity. I still like shooting it to the sun.

MICHAEL.

I hope they are more successful than THORP.

I guess the underlying theory is sound, but the execution was a bit lax.

I'm working on an article to reply to an Alisa Gravitz article that appeared in a local newspaper. It appears that the IFR (or maybe the LFTR) would do the job. The IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) can utilize the existing used fuel as well as the very large stock of depleted uranium (U-238). It can replace coal burners and thus cut way down on CO2 emissions, but the existing generators and transmission lines could still be used.

The important thing for this thread is that it can utilize the current waste as fuel, and use almost all of it, leaving maybe 100 times less waste that has a much shorter half life.

I'm still seeking to learn more about the present capabilities; please guide me to some sources.

This and another thread tie-in well with a conversation I was having the other day with a co-worker's cousin. He was insisting that nearly all of our currently viable sources of energy are anywhere from 20 to 50 years from depletion. He was quoting US Dept. of Energy studies that he supposedly had seen recently. He was insisting that any course we would take as a society to improve existing technology or R&D into new renewable energy sources would be futile and that the only long term solution was population control......by any means necessary. His preferred option was forced sterilization of "over productive" people. Thoughts?

This person have any relatives called Schicklgruber, by any chance?

I worked at Argonne National Lab in the 1960s, and I agree with most of what you have said.

No radiation is simply impossible due to the all day every day background radiation that we all receive.

What we called DAW (Dry Active Waste) included the paper towels, facial tissues, and anything else that "might" have radioactive contamination. It all required special (expensive) disposal.

I appreciate your reply. You have articulated what I have long thought to be the case regarding the over regulation of the nuclear power industry. Would that we could manage to educate more people not only in this area, but also in almost every other area where we have created some government regulatory agency. Once they exist their main function is to create stronger reasons for their existence and thus an expansion of their power over others. We need to be more careful as citizens to stop shoving our responsibilities off on the government. It's happened with so much and then we can't seem to figure out why we are losing more of our freedom every day.......

BTW. Is there any truth to the assertion that even the fresh fuel for these reactors is increasingly scarce?

"Is there any truth to the assertion that even the fresh fuel for these reactors is increasingly scarce?"

This may very well be; however see my posts #7 & 16. The Generation 3 and 4 reactors (IFR etc) can make the huge liability of used fuel and depleted uranium that we have into a $30 trillion asset in addition to reducing our CO2 emissions by replacing coal burners.

I have assembled an article, but it's too long to post here.

Hi,

there will not be a shortage in natural Uranium.

The price for fuel is resulting from enrichment, not from natural Uranium.

There is more than enough Uranium existing as Uranium is an abundant element.

There is an estimate (near 30 years old now and was published in SciAm) that a tenfold increase in price will give a 300-fold increase in available Uranium.

The advent of new reactors that will have a better fuel economy and will need only low enrichment below todays typical 3.5% will give much more additional available material.

RHABE

Why not put that stuff in barrels and send into space with the space shuttle. You can put a cheap rocket motor on it and shoot it into the sun, it is a big nuclear reactor anyway and you wouldnt need to get it all the way there before the suns gravity will latch on and drag it the rest of the way. The debris will be destroyed long before it gets there.

And when that booster has a catastrophic failure upon launch, then what?

Are you aware of the failure rate of even man rated boosters?

The Shuttle is almost 2% now.

Rehabe hints at what has been/will be developed. From my recent investigations (but more is needed) the favored reactors will be liquid metal or liquid salt cooled fast neutron reactors. They will use as fuel the current used fuel, the depleted uranium left from enrichment activities, and the plutonium from deactivated nuclear weapons. Plus the waste will be mainly fission products with much faster decay times--store for only a few hundred years instead of multi-100 thousands. They can replace coal plants and thus reduce/eliminate the CO2 and other emissions, plus can utilize the existing generators and transmission lines & towers.

There are many new and promising reactor designs, some of which use reprocessed fuel or spent fuel directly. See www.ans.org or www.nei.org for useful links. The most critical parameter is cost. Utilities prefer light water reactors because they have operated them for decades and know what all the little practical problems are and how to deal with them. Every new design will have a similar learning curve. The new types of reactor add a whole new level of risk, on top of the almost unacceptable political risks we now face. With current prices for large components, the risks of a new design are too large for a utility company to take.

As others have stated, the biggest cost driver is unnecessary regulations. We accept thousands of deaths caused by fossil fuel emissions every year but prevent building something that would replace them because of irrational fears, and a bureaucracy that grows by feeding on those fears. Fix that and our energy problems would be well on the way to solution. In any event, the volume of commercial nuclear waste is so small that it is a trivial problem. Most of the volume in Yucca Mountain was for nuclear weapons program waste. That stuff is a bit more problematic, but still less of a real problem than coal ash, which is both toxic forever and comes in huge volumes.

Hi,

Low level waste: bury somewhere, this is not too important.

If you extract the Uranium from only 1 cubic meter of granite you will need a transport permit to bring this to next door.

Used fuel elements: store until some market for these will emerge with new reactor types. Chemical reprocessing will be necessary, highly valued fuel will result. Some medium level waste will remain to be stored safely for 2 to 5000 years. This will bring down the necessary storage time by a factor of 100!

New reactors will be able to burn most of the high activity waste so this problem will shrink into non-existence if we are patient to wait.

May be not the coming generation of reactors although everything seems to be ready for use. Only the big 4: GE, Siemens, Areva and Rosatom stick with old plans of light water moderated reactors - too bad, and may be they will follow GM - too convinced that they invented everything useful.

RHABE

Hello Blogger,

We think and do things but never think or do something with all consequences. Never start with the other end of the idea or the final product.

Can we do something "positive" with the nuclear wastes? Give authorization to build the buclear plant when we have a solution, "positive" solution for the wastes.

We do lots of things and don't care about the restes, Gil.

Hi Bloggers,

I put "buclear" because we make nuclear "b"ombs and nuckear wastes, which are "b"ombs later on.

Have we a program which is clean or green for today and for the future? Wait for answer, Gil.