Follow this blog:
RSS

Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?

By | June 8, 2010, 7:21 AM PDT

The United States has an atomic waste problem.

Nuclear power is without a doubt a viable source of cleaner energy, but the problem has always been what to do with the process’ byproducts.

A new Wall Street Journal report details the U.S. Department of Energy’s problems cleaning up temporary caches of steel-and-concrete casks filled with radioactive waste at now-defunct reactor sites.

The Energy Department is legally obligated to relieve nuclear plants of radioactive waste. But it hasn’t, because there’s nowhere permanent to put it.

Three months ago, the plan to build a nuclear waste repository in Yucca Mountain, Nevada was canceled. It was the only candidate for the task.

Meanwhile, waste is piling up at nuclear facilities.

WSJ details one in Wiscasset, Maine:

The Maine Yankee facility was shuttered back in 1996 after developing problems too costly to fix, and the reactor was dismantled early this decade. What’s left is a bare field of 167 acres cleared and ready for development—except for one thing.

Left behind are 64 enormous steel-and-concrete casks that hold 542 metric tons of radioactive waste. Seventeen feet tall and 150 tons apiece, the casks are protected by razor wire, cameras and a security force.

Reporter Rebecca Smith calls them “the power industry’s biggest hot potatoes,” and she’s right.

Last month, energy secretary Steven Chu announced $38 million for nuclear research and development projects:

We are taking action to restart the nuclear industry as part of a broad approach to cut carbon pollution and create new clean energy jobs. These projects will help us develop the nuclear technologies of the future and move our domestic nuclear industry forward.

But the problem isn’t in the discovery part of the pipeline — it’s way at the end.

The U.S. government says it will make a recommendation for the problem within 18 months, reports the WSJ. But the clock is ticking: the temporary casks are only licensed to hold radioactive waste for 20 years.

What’s more, those casks will multiply as nuclear plants’ storage areas fill up.

Utilities haven’t been happy with the federal government, and have filed more than 70 lawsuits for breach of contract. $1.3 billion has already been paid out.

In testimony in July 2009 (.pdf), Kim Cawley, chief of the Natural and Physical Resources Cost Estimates Unit, said the following:

The federal government is more than 10 years behind schedule in its contractual obligations to remove and dispose of such waste, and the government has paid nuclear utilities $565 million in compensation for costs incurred because of its failure to meet that schedule. DOE currently estimates that liabilities to electric utilities for such damages will total more than $12 billion if the department begins to accept nuclear waste by 2020. How the Administration’s decision to terminate the Yucca Mountain project will affect the federal government’s liabilities is unclear, but the estimate will climb if the department’s schedule slips beyond 2020. Regardless of whether or when the government opens a repository, such payments (which come from the Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund) will probably continue for several decades.

The WSJ report outlines some scary figures:

  • More than 800 filled casks await a final destination, holding 14,000 metric tons of waste.
  • Another 49,000 metric tons is being held in spent-fuel pools, waiting to be placed in vessels.
  • A further 2,000 metric tons of nuclear reactor waste is created every year.

The problem is that the next wave of nuclear reactors are already on the drawing board.

One bright spot: some of those new reactors, “fast reactors,” can burn radioactive waste.

But that’s not enough. Can America solve its nuclear waste problem in time?

Illustration, top: Nuclear dry storage casks. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Illustration, bottom: Yucca Mountain facility. USNRC.

Map: U.S. nuclear power reactors. USNRC.

Related on SmartPlanet:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Andrew Nusca

About Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca is the editor of SmartPlanet.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca

Editor

Andrew Nusca is editor of SmartPlanet and an associate editor for ZDNet. Previously, he worked at Money, Men's Vogue and Popular Mechanics magazines. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and New York University. He based in New York but resides in Philadelphia.

Follow him on Twitter.

Andrew Nusca

Andrew Nusca
Andrew Nusca does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
76
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Harry Reid took the money for Nevada to build Yucca mountain at a cost of several billion dollars but when it came time to actually use it then got a real bad case of " not in my backyard". Obama clinched it by cancelling Yucca Mountain. Not for any scientific or legal reason. It was politics pure and simple. Now the cost of storing the waste is mounting. When are liberals going to learn that nuclear power does not equal nuclear weapons. If liberals were really so pro-environment they would be the biggest backers of nuclear power and nuclear power technology.
Posted by randall.wilkinson@...
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
France, and some of the other European countries are heavily into nuclear power generation. I wonder what their arrangements for waste disposal are? The gulf spill just might put a different slant on our own priorities for both building new reactors, and solving the problem of nuclear waste disposal.
Posted by georgem@...
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
liberals? LOL
@randall.wilkinson:
I don't think the issue is that liberals see a tie-in between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Weapons have nothing to do with this. The issue is that the storage of this material is nearly impossible to guarantee for millions of years, putting us all, and our environment, at risk. Only big-business conservatives look at this as a short-term problem, with profits to be made, damn the earth.

I don't have a solution for the problem, but since we're low on uranium as it is (not enough to keep powering our current nuclear plants, much less to power new ones!), why aren't we looking at alternatives? This is the first that comes to mind:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
Posted by lefty.crupps
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
The French have a mature fuel recycling program. "[R]ecycling produces much lower volumes of highly radioactive waste, and the French deal with it effectively--placing some waste in short-term, interim storage or preparing the rest for long-term storage in their version of Yucca Mountain."{1}

Unfortunately, USA bureaucrats have nixed such a program for various political reasons since the '70s. This last move to cancel the Yucca Mountain facility is just another example of political stupidity, which is rampant in Washington and many states.

If the French can do it, then I assure you we have the capability.

{1}: Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can't Oui?
Published on December 28, 2007 by Jack Spencer (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heritage.org%2FResearch%2FCommentary%2F2007%2F12%2FRecycling-Nuclear-Fuel-The-French-Do-It-Why-Cant-Oui&ei=DmsOTNf3JYKuMobs4MYM&usg=AFQjCNF57Y1rkcYbm19Ulr3QZz52P09UEA)
Posted by David A. Pimentel
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Why not just shoot it off into the sun and be done with it? We've already got thousands of ICBMs: rockets made specifically to carry a nuclear payload into orbit. Just repurpose them for something useful instead of destructive.

Give them enough fuel to escape the gravity well entirely and some way to use cameras and a computer chip to find the sun and point themselves at it. Get far enough away from Earth and gravity will do the rest. Problem solved.
Posted by masonwheeler
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
The real danger with nuclear power is not the reactors it is the operators:

http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/accidents/accidents-1970%27s.htm
Posted by Repeal
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
There is another less heard of non-nuclear time bomb lurking off the Kent coast of the UK. which the government say has no nuclear material on board, but cant confirm no Bio hazards....
http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com
(copy and paste URL in to your browser)
Posted by ronangel
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Yucca Mountain
I suspect Yucca Mountain is a good solution, but maybe we should pay the Nevada citizens each, individually, for the right to use their state to get past the NIMBY problem. Sounds like a good proposal to put before the Nevada voters.

gary
Posted by gdstark13
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Launch them into the sun?
Just my creative juices flowing here, but why can't we use maglev technology to build a launch platform to launch these casks into space at the sun. The sun would pretty much incinerate the material before it even got there. Or if we're not sure of what the introduction of such material might do to the sun, launch it at mercury.

We can wrap the casks in an airbag deployment and parachute protection system in the event that something goes wrong with the launch , but if the launch is successful the cask can release the protection system so we can reuse it.

Energy to power this facility could come from a mixture of the existing grid and a solar/wind farm in the vicinity.
Posted by Doc75
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Shooting plutonium, which is fissionable, into outer space or into the sun is neurotic and silly. Here is my proposal regarding spent nuclear fuel: Since we are too hung up about plutonium, recycling and sequestration of fission product waste to resolve these issues domestically, I propose the following:

We should ship our spent nuclear fuel to China, Russia, France, or England and let them use the plutonium contained therein for their own nuclear power reactors. And also, let them deal with sequestration of radioactive isotopes (fission products) that cannot be recycled.

The only question I can't answer here is: Should we pay said countries for taking fission product wastes off our hands? Or should they make a net payment to us, to reflect the energy value of plutonium in our spent nuclear fuel that we don't want to utilize ourselves?
Posted by AlexKovnat
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
launch it
I like the idea of repurposing weapons to act as waste disposal
units...however, why must we assume having to aim the waste at
an object in our solar system?

Why not just aim it directly out into interstellar space? The notion
of littering space is absurd - if we're even bothering to consider
polluting our little blue ball with earth-bound disposal sites and we
think we have room for that, how could we possibly be worried
about any waste accumulating at any single point in the cosmos?

If we can launch probes that stay on a calculated course out to
the ends of our solar system, we can ensure we don't accidentally
slingshot junk around a planet and back at us - space is, like, a
really big place with no known border, so once the stuff is gone,
it's gone. Right?

The only concern is if some country mistakes a waste launch for
a hostile weapon launch and retaliate...
Posted by Non-techie Talk
8th Jun 2010
+2 Votes
+ -
What we should do with interactive waste
Some interesting comments here, so I thought I'd offer my take.

We need to invent a technology that complements an existing
energy technology -- that is, an inverse process that can actually
make useful the entire byproduct of the original process.

Sustainable, in the most literal of ways.

It seems to me that burying nuclear waste, or sending it off into
the sun, doesn't really help the situation at large.

Instead of inventing new ways to store atomic waste, perhaps we
ought to think of new ways to reuse it.

I still see issues with scale, of course; such imbalance in an
ecosystem can't sustain itself. But there's nothing balanced about
investing billions to bury waste in a hole.
Posted by andrew.nusca
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
"Ticking time bombs" is an unfortunate choice of words. They're not bombs. The waste you're referring to here is spent fuel rods. There is still plenty of useable fuel in the rods, the problem is as they're used, daughter products from the fission process ultimately interfere with fission, so that the process is no longer sustainable. We have the technology here on earth to reprocess the rods. As mentioned above, the French unencumbered by political hacks in this area, have been doing it for years. As for storage of the reduced, smaller volume of waste, storage does not mean abandonment. It can & will be monitored, and moved/shifted/further reprocessed as necessary over the course of the storage. Disclaimer-I've worked in the field of commercial nuclear power for >30 years.
Posted by Diveguy7317
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
@AlexKovnat
Thanks - but we Brits already have c 200+ tons of surplus to requirements plutonium merrily radiating away next door to our own reprocessing facility at Sellafield, which has never worked to specification & was closed down when it failed to, erm, actually reprocess anything much without leaking. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be able to come up with a solution outside the realms of science fantasy fiction.
Re the cost of decommissioning and waste management - there's a perfectly simple solution: it should have been properly accounted for in the price of all that 'cheap' electricity the technology generated, not be a burden on thr schmucks left with the problem of keeping it safe for the next million years or so. If you're as baffled by the economics of this as I am then I refer you to the problem of paying for a meal at Douglas Adams' Restaurant at the end of the Universe . . .
Posted by LavdenderHillMobster
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
See Bill Gates' TED talk on Terrapower:
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bill_gates.html

A bit like composting, pile it all in silos & capture the heat nuke trash is already producing.

Nukepocalypse averted.
Posted by genedieken
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Radioactivity depends on atomic makeup
Take the waste and burn it in plasma furnace - thus rearranging the structure to something harmless.

Done.
Posted by GuntherGump
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
What is the problem using the fast reacters which burn on waste material? If we can't do that well, maybe we could dump in California. After all the living creatures are gone, we could move in a bucnh of non-nuts to enjoy the scenery.
Posted by wfd1
8th Jun 2010
+2 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
@ GuntherGump
"Take the waste and burn it in plasma furnace - thus rearranging the structure to something harmless.

Done."

this shows a complete misunderstanding of the issues, you cannot burn radioactive plutonium and uranium and lead with intense heat and get relatively harmless byproducts like carbon etc.burn uranium and you get uranium oxide, which is still radioactive.
Posted by kevinrs1
8th Jun 2010
+2 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Fast reactors are the answer, as you point out. What no one appears to have thought of so far is placing waste in open-ended (at least at one end) lead cylinders and letting fast neutrons blast the contents until they are relatively stable or short-lived isotopes able to be incorporated into slag, resulting in stone that is no more radioactive than background radiation or uranium ore. Lead is never going to get seriously radioactive other than a couple of events of beta radiation and one of alpha emission in a cycle.
Posted by ardavidson
8th Jun 2010
+2 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Lifting their mass into space would be a terrible waste of resources. Injecting them into the sun, if possible, would be an even worse idea as these heavy elements are formed only in the last few seconds of a star's life. You'd be poisoning the reactions or hastening the sun's demise to no good purpose.

Let fast neutrons reduce them to low-intensity radioactive waste and then process them accordingly. Look up the Integral Fast Reactor et al to see how things should have been done.
Posted by ardavidson
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
@Masonwheeler: maybe when Superman returns, he can just fly it up
there for us. an idea awesome for its stupidity.

Has anyone stopped to wonder why its such a big problem? is it
because its still radioactive? aren't there technologies that supply
power by radioactive decay? is it, just maybe, that all that fuel is
actually still very harvestable energy? Is it that the introduction of
such fuel into the market (via recycling) would disrupt energy prices so
much such that the cost of electricity would drop to the floor, making
electric vehicles more practical than the oil thats currently gushing into
the Gulf right now? If the problems 10 years old, and 10 years ago,
who did we elect into office? someone who was anti oil? or someone
who invested $trillions into a region full of oil?
Posted by Vailhem@...
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Useful Waste
Bill Gates has spoken about a potential solution with a Travelling Wave Reactor to use the depleted uranium:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

Terra Power Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIfMmqKYC6w&feature=related
Posted by aeriform
8th Jun 2010
+2 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
As a resident of Clark County Nevada I have followed the Yucca Mountain story carefully. The site was never fully developed in large part because of the environmental issues surrounding building in a tectonically active area and an area in which water continued to seep. The second may have been solvable, but the first is something the NRC did not even want to acknowledge.

Transporting the waste to a central site, even one in the desert, is a security nightmare. We need to think of multiple sites in many locations around the country, but stay away from those that are tectonically active.
Posted by dheflich@...
8th Jun 2010
-2 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Bury the ghost of Jimmy Carter and start reprocessing.
Posted by revelationsofsd@...
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
@GuntherGump
Take the waste and burn it in plasma furnace - thus rearranging the structure to something harmless.

While a plasma furnace will break compounds down to their elemental constituents it won't change the elements themselves. That takes a nuclear reaction.
Posted by riverat1
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Traveling wave reactor.
The solution to nuclear waste? Develop better power plants and
burn it. Idea has been around since the 60's. Might have already
been available if the eco-FUD-freaks hadn't scared off nuclear
technology. We've languished in stagnated technologies due to unwarranted fear, and for so long we forgot the technology. That is
really, really pathetic. Don't worry, we're going to do the same thing
with global warming the way we're going.
Posted by shadfurman
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
The French have been using Nuclear Energy for years and seem to be able to deal with waste products without any problems.

It they did, the Greenies would be screaming loudly about it.
Posted by elderlybloke
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
long term waste = fuel. short term waste has a half life 1/100th the
containers its stored in.

repeat: long term waste = fuel. its called reprocessing, mox,
radioactive decay... deuterium? thats great for fusion... tritium? also
fusion. Ever wonder... In 1977, Carter invested a bunch of money in
alternatives, wind mills, even went so far as to put solar panels on the
white house. in 1979, the largest oil spill in the gulf happened. 1980,
he loses re-election. During his campaign, he kills reprocessing and
saves the coal industry... at the expense of the nuclear. In 2008-9,
Obama invests a ****-ton into alternative energy, 2010, the second
largest oil spill in the gulf (and still growing) happens. Anyone
wonder if we'll still be addicted to oil 30 years later?

we most definitely will be if they don't undo Carter's anti-reprocessing
treaty. oh, i got it, its because we're still afraid they're going to turn
that fuel into another 5,000 nuclear warheads to match the 5,000 we
already have.... wait... does that mean the material in the nuclear
weapons is fuel grade too??? Wow! one would shudder to think what
would happen if we cut our nuke-weapons in half, used fuel from
them, and burnt up all that radioactive 'waste' in the off hours... ya
know... when its not charging our electric cars.

no oil? no coal? no weapons? what would the world be like! it'd...
it'd... it'd.... almost seem like a nice place to live!

back to my bunker
Posted by Vailhem@...
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
bang, gone
Big rail guns. Oh, don't worry, it'll never happen.
Posted by trm1945
8th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Why worry about nuclear waste? BP is working hard to kill the planet without irradiating us.
Kill the ocean life and we are all dead. And if we can't ensure the safe operation of an oil well, how can u truly believe nuclear power plants are safe? just because we haven't had a major disaster in that sector yet doesn't mean Murphy's law is dead....
Posted by winddrift03
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Like most things -
"It's only waste if you don't use it!"

The plastics industry would have a huge waste disposal problem if we didn't use petrol (gas) in our cars.

- but you have to allow the research.
Posted by c_hirst@...
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Shooting into the sun will never work
To all those who suggest shooting the waste into the sun, forget it. It takes an incredible amount of energy to shoot something from the earth into the sun. You basically have to cancel out all the orbital energy something has from being on the earth, otherwise the object will never fall into the sun but simply assume another orbit around the sun.
Posted by zackers
8th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
New Border Fence?
If we sprinkle it along the U.S./Mexico border, it will be a great deterant to illegal entry.
Posted by Bit-Smacker
9th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Concentrate it. Suspend it in a semi-solid, gelatinous material. Send it in a cheap rocket into the Sun.
Posted by tctaylor1031@...
9th Jun 2010
+2 Votes
+ -
Launch to space...?
For those that propose to send the nuclear wastes to the Sun, you should be made aware that it takes MORE energy to plunge to the sun than to escape the solar system, a lot more.

The "problem" of that mater going into the Sun is a non-problem. The total mass of ficionable material and wastes that we could possibly create amount to less than a billionth of a percent of the mass of the Sun. Less than negligeable.
Oh! By the way, you can't incinerate nuclear wastes. Incineration works at the molecular level, radioactivity appens at the ATOMIC level, from the nucleus of the atom.

Send to outher space? Not realy good. It can come back at us after an unknown time. We can unwithing run into it in some future. Space polution in a definite no-no.

Sending to Jupiter would be acceptable. The sheer mass of the planet and it's extremely thick, unbreathable, exedingly cold, athmosphere, renders the planet uterly inospitable and a perfect prison for dangerous material. It would take less than 1% of the energy needed to sent into the Sun.

But, before doint that, we should look at treating those wastes and extract any useable materials we can. Those wastes contains lots of isotops that could be put to good uses, medical, engineiring, testing, research, security... Some of that material can be used to produce more energy. There is even some non-radioactive material that could be retreived from those wastes.

Once you remove the reuseable part, the real wastes become much more manageable.
Posted by Kualinar
9th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Tectonic subsidence zone.
The solution has been around for years. Wrap it up as best you can and drop it into the ocean at one of the tectonic subsidence zones. It will get sucked into the rift in short order and be dispersed in the mantle. It won't see the light of day in eons.
Posted by gbeck
9th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
Imitate France
I'm no expert in nuclear technology, but my understanding is that France's total nuclear waste is a fraction of America's, primarily because they use breeder reactors which produce more fuel than they consume and produce much less waste.

The problem? Jimmy Carter thought (erroneously) that this fuel could be used for nuclear weapons and banned this type of reactor in the U.S. So for years we have been forced to use technology that results in much more radioactive waste.

Articles that I have read say that France's total nuclear waste can fit into one modest-sized room, and they have been getting 80% of their electricity from nuclear power for many years.

I would like to hear comments from people who really know this field, but somehow France has been using much more nuclear power for many years and I have never heard of a waste problem there.
Posted by ted@...
9th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
What I don't understand from all the rest of you is...(electro, what a GOOD idea)... If you are talking technology for all this green planet stuff, and how technology can bring us into the future..yet, you don't have any confidence in our FUTURE technology to handle this problem? Closemindedness. AS we all know, because it has been proven, we also have a huge amount of waste from the building of ALL those 1000's acres of solar panels.. chemical contamination of the air and the factories from the curing of all those fiberglass propellers, etc.,etc., etc. Hey, we all FART don't we?
Posted by Solution1
9th Jun 2010
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Shucks, just dump in the Gulf of Mexico. It's already a waste dump.
See, BP has just solved another pressing problem!
Good for BP!
Posted by frankgregg
9th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
Thanks for not beating me with the dumb-stick too badly - appreciated.
If a plasma furnace can't rip apart the nucleus of the radioactive element, could we smelt the radioactive waste with something that absorbs the radiation?

It's not a solution, but the storage would be easier.
Posted by GuntherGump
9th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
I am with those who suggest that we do what France has been doing. By reprocessing the fuel you can extract more usable fuel, in this case plutonium. Using breeder reactors you essentially continue recylcing the fuel until there is a far smaller mass left.

How much additional energy can you get by doing this? I have read that we use only about 5 percent of the available energy in the nuclear fuel using our process, whereas you can us above 90 percent by reprocessing.

Does the plutonium have to be a danger for nuclear weapons? No, according to the reports that I have read. Plutonium can be doped with impurities that would make it impossible to use in a fissionable weapon, so danger would be the danger would be similar to what we face with standard nuclear power plants. It could be less than that. New technologies, using pellitized fuel and reactor designs would make it possible to avoid having to have active cooling systems to prevent overheating. Essentially you could cool the fuel in an emergency simply with normal air flow. Typically the new designs for nuclear powerplants are much smaller in size. There are even companies that have developed self contained power plants that could be burried in the ground until they needed refueling. I think that these designs produced about 50,000 KW, the amount of power required for small cities. I don't want you to focus on the numbers, because it has been a while since I read the articles and I could be off, but the concepts are what count.

More importantly, the technology to use nuclear power safely has been around for at least a decade and perhaps two decades. Environmentalist have us sticking our heads in the ground when it comes to energy and this has to stop.

Nuclear power could be the primary answer to all our energy needs. Hydrogen could be used to fuel vehicles, but you need energy to separate hydrogen from water. The only feasible energy source available to generate enough hydrogen to make it a viable fuel source is nuclear energy. No other energy source comes close. So if environmentalists want us to get off oil then they need to accept nuclear energy.
Posted by hjs1951
9th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Shooting into the sun (or just getting close enough for government work) may be silly and neurotic but would probably be cheaper that reprocessing enough waste that we can no longer find places to bury it. "Not in My Back Yard" sounds tired but if it were YOUR BACK YARD it probably would not sound so dumb; Yucca Mountain was apprarently on a fault (in California everything here is on one, so don't bury it here either) and so far we lack the technology or the economic will to look the problem squarely in the eyes. If the French have such a great system, why aren't we already using (read: buying) their ideas and using them here? Inquiring minds wanna know.
Posted by ta1
9th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
for everyone who keeps going back to shooting into the sun/other places in space, you have to look at the math.

In launching a relatively small 1850 kilograms SOHO satellite away from earth, to get to L1 orbit to observe the sun, took an enormous 236 268 kg rocket. it would take even more to actually get to the sun. If it takes 127 times the payload weight in launch vehicle weight to get just to L1 orbit, it's probably going to take more energy(in making the rockets, and making the fuel) to get the waste there, than was ever extracted from the fuel. Aside from that, one of those thousands of rockets failing, would spread the waste all over.

on the railguns, even worse, the speed it would need to launch at to get to the sun, would likely vaporize the uranium, lead, and other waste by atmospheric friction. escape velocity: 11.2 km/s speed of the earth in orbit around the sun ~30 km/s so to railgun something to the sun would take over 40 km/s or mach 116. not accounting for friction speed loss. you could save a little by planning the shot to go in front of venus, but not that much, and at speeds like that, atmospheric pressure on the front of what you are shooting is more like hitting a rock wall than what you'd think of in air.
Posted by kevinrs1
11th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Waste disposal belong to overall cost-of-energy, nuclear or not.
Being so, a possible solution: pack them, concentrate as much as today technology allow put same into a rocket Then deliver waste to biggest and safest incinirator available: the SUN. It might take years but is safe and clean. Regarding Cost I believe the nuclear community can support it by reversing same on end users.
Could be worth make few calculations.

Best!

Emilio Odescalchi
Milano
ITALY.
Posted by eodesca@...
16th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Forget the politics. Impeach Reid and all the other politicians. Then publish the names, addresses, salaries and sources of $$ for every parasite lobbyist. Imagine what sunshine would do! I think most politicians and most of government needs to be attached to a giant Reset button.

Back to the topic. Want to understand the pucker side of this issue? Talk to fiction writers (science fiction and thrillers). They are the ones with the best 'what if' minds. What happens to a stockpile if someone decides to ram a jet into one? What if there is infiltration and a stockpile (even a small part of ones) is turned into a oversize dirty bomb?

If you want to have any government body deal with this issue, house them next to a stockpile and say: When was it you said you would have a solution? (I suggest Reid and any money-sucker who took the billions also be housed next to a stockpile.)
Posted by bob1973
18th Jun 2010
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Just continue writing this kind of post. I will be your loyal reader. Thanks again.
Thesis Help
Dissertation Help
Assignment Help
GCSE Coursework
Essay Help
Posted by JessieRider
22nd Feb 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Shooting into the sun (or just getting close enough for government
work) may be silly and neurotic but would probably be cheaper that
reprocessing enough waste that we can no longer find places to
bury it. ?bersetzer
Posted by prolanguage
27th Feb 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Shooting into the sun (or just getting close enough for government
work) may be silly and neurotic but would probably be cheaper that
reprocessing enough waste that we can no longer find places to
bury it. Übersetzer
Posted by prolanguage
27th Feb 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
RE: Ticking time bombs: what should we do with nuclear waste?
Radioactive waste from nuclear power stations radiates partially
still millions years. Many want to seal this high-radioactive waste
as fast and permanently as possible in an ultimate waste
disposal. There is an alternative: Partitionierung and
Transmutation (P& T). Among them one understands the
chemical separation of the high-radioactive elements from a
burned down fuel element and their irradiation with neutrons. The
quantity of high-radioactive materials is reduced thereby, and the
radioactive waste, which would have to be finalstored, develops
less decay warmth. Thus one increases the long-term security of
an ultimate waste disposal. That P& T functioned in principle, was
proven in the laboratory. European pilot plants, for example in
Belgium and France, are to show that the technology is
applicable for larger quantities even. Assistance of the
Transmutation would let itself win even energy. Not in the today's
nuclear power stations, but in nuclear power stations of the fourth
generation, which at present are still in planning. And if a society
does not want to build new nuclear power stations, one could
illuminate the high-radioactive garbage also in plants, which are
developed particularly for the purpose of the Transmutation. In
Europe garbage recycling is an important goal. P& T could make
lasting waste management possible finally also for radioactive
waste.
www.ebooks-at.de
www.immobilie-seite.de
Posted by e-zigarette
10th Mar 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Same thinking
Yeah, I couldn't have said it better!
http://www.smokelesscigarettesx.com
http://www.cliniquebonustimev.com/
Posted by JasmineW101
9th May 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!