Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby Newbie Wants Info » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 13:22:51

Socrates1Fan: Thank you very much for the informative reply. As you stated, there is very little information about this on the internet, much to my surprise since it is obviously a big issue. The fact that another ordinary person out there was thinking about this is relieving and I'm happy to learn you got the information that you (and I) wanted.

It seems as though there could be time in the future to "safely" store the radioactive material. I'm not sure if I consider the power plants themselves to be safe. They're above ground, made out of materials that lose integrity with time, especially in hot, humid environments. Could power plants in Japan not be weakened and eroded by the elements and by green lifeforms and then destroyed by earthquake? Tsunami waves could carry radiation like wind. I sincerely hope that the system does not break down before every power plant in the world can be turned off and the material buried far underground where it can't reach the water.

ROCKMAN: Thanks for the information. That info seems to judge the safety of fully functioning power plans. I agree, as long as civilization is up and running, nuclear power is generally safe compared to other threats. But if civilization collapses nuclear material could become extremely dangerous.
Newbie Wants Info
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Sun 02 Jun 2013, 18:21:01

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby socrates1fan » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 13:37:26

Newbie Wants Info wrote:Socrates1Fan: Thank you very much for the informative reply. As you stated, there is very little information about this on the internet, much to my surprise since it is obviously a big issue. The fact that another ordinary person out there was thinking about this is relieving and I'm happy to learn you got the information that you (and I) wanted.


No problem. In the issue of peak oil there is enough to worry about and I think as human beings we easily become very catastrophic. The complexity and uncertainty of the issue brings us anxiety and we all need to make sure we know what we are dealing with. The information on the internet is highly catastrophic and not usually built on a foundation of facts.

It seems as though there could be time in the future to "safely" store the radioactive material. I'm not sure if I consider the power plants themselves to be safe. They're above ground, made out of materials that lose integrity with time, especially in hot, humid environments. Could power plants in Japan not be weakened and eroded by the elements and by green lifeforms and then destroyed by earthquake? Tsunami waves could carry radiation like wind. I sincerely hope that the system does not break down before every power plant in the world can be turned off and the material buried far underground where it can't reach the water.


Nuclear plants can and will decay with time. They're buildings and just like any other structure they do decay and eventually crumble. If the fuel had cooled for a few years, it wouldn't matter if the structure collapsed. The radioactive material is going to stay where it's at, even if that means buried under a great deal of metal and concrete rubble.

In the case of Japan, if a plant (with cooled spent fuel) collapsed into the ocean (due to a tsunami) the radiation would be heavily dispersed and almost irrelevant once it reached US shores. Heck, you probably would have more issues with the lead and mercury that are ALREADY in the water supply before you had issues with the radiation.

Point is, don't waste your valuable energy on it.
User avatar
socrates1fan
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 04 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby C8 » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 13:40:09

[quote="Newbie Wants Info)
I agree, the risk of Chinese-constructed nuclear reactors is great. I don't think that blaming capitalism or "greed" is a good idea, though.

[/quote][/quote]

Please reread my post, I think you may not have fully understood the casual links.
User avatar
C8
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 08:02:48

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby pstarr » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 13:47:23

ROCKMAN wrote:Somehow I have a hard time believing there is a greatly likelihood of being killed by an asteroid than by fireworks.

And to think how many folks bet on the big lottery win even though those odds are much worse than getting killed by fire crackers.

I was thinking the same thing.

Shouldn't "death by stupidity" rate a line in the list. How many of those items include just a touch of dumb? Lighting strikes, a lot? :P

I used to be rabidly anti-nuke, back when I was near-vegetarian (I have since seen the error of my ways). What really gave me pause for thought were the The Wolves of Chernoby
There's nothing deeper than love. In fairy tales, the princesses kiss the frogs, and the frogs become princes. In real life,the princesses kiss princes, and the princes turn into frogs

“Bitterness is like cancer. It eats upon the host. But anger is like fire. It burns it all clean.”
― Maya Angelou
pstarr
NeoMaster
NeoMaster
 
Posts: 24673
Joined: Mon 27 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Behind the Redwood Curtain

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby lper100km » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 13:57:46

Tanada wrote:Spent nuclear fuel, i.e. the stuff in cooling ponds and dry cask storage, decays down to near background levels in 300 years.

I was intrigued by your suggestion of 300 years for spent fuel to become harmless. Even that would present a hazard in the present if a swift collapse occurred. My recollection was that typical half lives are in the order of 10,000 years and in 10^6 years for some isotopes. The WIKI quotes the half life of U235 as 704*10^6 years though recognises that the spent fuel is able to be removed from cooling after 10 years or so for storage in sealed barrels - preferably miles underground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel
User avatar
lper100km
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon 05 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby socrates1fan » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 15:10:20

lper100km wrote:
Tanada wrote:Spent nuclear fuel, i.e. the stuff in cooling ponds and dry cask storage, decays down to near background levels in 300 years.

I was intrigued by your suggestion of 300 years for spent fuel to become harmless. Even that would present a hazard in the present if a swift collapse occurred. My recollection was that typical half lives are in the order of 10,000 years and in 10^6 years for some isotopes. The WIKI quotes the half life of U235 as 704*10^6 years though recognises that the spent fuel is able to be removed from cooling after 10 years or so for storage in sealed barrels - preferably miles underground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel


The spent fuel will be radioactive for a very long time, however it won't be catastrophically radioactive for very long. After a certain point the radioactivity of the spent fuel becomes irrelevant to people (unless people come into direct contact with it).
User avatar
socrates1fan
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 04 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 16:33:50

lper100km wrote:
Tanada wrote:Spent nuclear fuel, i.e. the stuff in cooling ponds and dry cask storage, decays down to near background levels in 300 years.

I was intrigued by your suggestion of 300 years for spent fuel to become harmless. Even that would present a hazard in the present if a swift collapse occurred. My recollection was that typical half lives are in the order of 10,000 years and in 10^6 years for some isotopes. The WIKI quotes the half life of U235 as 704*10^6 years though recognizes that the spent fuel is able to be removed from cooling after 10 years or so for storage in sealed barrels - preferably miles underground. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel


First of all I never said it would become harmless, I said it will become no more harmful than Uranium ore mined out of the ground.

Secondly I also pointed out that long half life radioactive isotopes are not a radiation danger, they are a heavy metal poisoning danger just like Mercury and Lead. The longer the half life the less exposure you will get from coming into contact with the material.

There is radioactive Carbon-14 in everything you eat that was alive in the last 40,000 years and your body has plenty of radioactive Potassium 40 (K-40) in it as well. Almost all of the Uranium in the spent fuel in U-238 with a half life of 4.468 Billion years. Almost one percent of spent fuel is Plutonium, about half of that is Pu-239 with a 27,000 year half life. Of course the media leaves out the fact that when PU-239 decays it converts into the U-235 you sited above with a 704 Million year half life. The plutonium 238 used for radio-thermal isotope generators for space craft has a measly 88 year half life and is radioactive enough that the heat it releases will burn you severely from the heat alone. But in 300 years under 10% of the Pu-238 remains, the rest has decayed away into U-234, which we find in natural uranium ore whenever we mine up Uranium.

Radiation is neither your friend nor your foe, but it is in everything you eat, most everything you touch and frequently in what you breath.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 13506
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby lper100km » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 19:11:22

socrates1fan wrote:
The spent fuel will be radioactive for a very long time, however it won't be catastrophically radioactive for very long. After a certain point the radioactivity of the spent fuel becomes irrelevant to people (unless people come into direct contact with it).

This article spells out the health hazards relative to spent fuel storage. Most optimistically, the radiation hazard is reduced sufficiently only after tens of thousands of years. I think your estimate of a few years is underestimated.
It is clear that the spent fuel management systems are the most critical features of nuclear power production and there seems to be no cohesive long range plan to manage this hazard for the next million years or so.
User avatar
lper100km
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon 05 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 19:24:23

The dust in Iraq rolls down the long roads that are the desert’s fingers. It gets in your eyes and nose and throat; it swirls in markets and school playgrounds, consuming children kicking a ball; and it carries, according to Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, “the seeds of our death”. An internationally respected cancer specialist at the Sadr Teaching Hospital in Basra, Dr. Ali told me that in 1999, and today his warning is irrefutable. “Before the Gulf war,” he said, “we had two or three cancer patients a month. Now we have 30 to 35 dying every month. Our studies indicate that 40 to 48 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years’ time to begin with, then long after. That’s almost half the population. Most of my own family have it, and we have no history of the disease. It is like Chernobyl here; the genetic effects are new to us; the mushrooms grow huge; even the grapes in my garden have mutated and can’t be eaten.”

Along the corridor, Dr. Ginan Ghalib Hassen, a paediatrician, kept a photo album of the children she was trying to save. Many had neuroplastoma. “Before the war, we saw only one case of this unusual tumour in two years,” she said. “Now we have many cases, mostly with no family history. I have studied what happened in Hiroshima. The sudden increase of such congenital malformations is the same.”

Among the doctors I interviewed, there was little doubt that depleted uranium shells used by the Americans and British in the Gulf War were the cause. A US military physicist assigned to clean up the Gulf War battlefield across the border in Kuwait said, “Each round fired by an A-10 Warhog attack aircraft carried solid uranium. Well over 300 tons of DU was used. It was a form of nuclear warfare.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/05/31/ ... -iraq-war/
"I could go on, but let’s veer off in another direction instead."

– The Archdruid
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 7273
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby lper100km » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 19:33:58

Tanada wrote:
First of all I never said it would become harmless, I said it will become no more harmful than Uranium ore mined out of the ground.

Thanks for the clarification. I read into your post that the health hazard was sufficiently reduced in 300 years when other literature suggests that it is several tens of thousands to a million years, give or take. Anyway, I am no expert and look to the internet for info on this issue.

As far as satisfying the question posed in the OP, it seems largely irrelevant anyway. The time scales are so enormous. In 60 years or less, the human race has managed to create an unimaginable threat to life that can persist for millions of years into the future and seemingly has no cohesive way to deal with it. As time goes on, the threat of a major nuclear event has to increase. That's simple logic. In 60 years, there have been three already. The cause can be from any source - economic, political unrest, financial, complacency, material shortage, auxiliary fuel shortage, crumbling infrastructure, environmental, human error, - the list is potentially endless and unpredictable. That a cosmic time scale hazard could be created within a human lifetime timescale is truly mind blowing.

Here's a reference to the health hazard info.
User avatar
lper100km
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon 05 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby socrates1fan » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 20:05:14

lper100km wrote:
socrates1fan wrote:
The spent fuel will be radioactive for a very long time, however it won't be catastrophically radioactive for very long. After a certain point the radioactivity of the spent fuel becomes irrelevant to people (unless people come into direct contact with it).

This article spells out the health hazards relative to spent fuel storage. Most optimistically, the radiation hazard is reduced sufficiently only after tens of thousands of years. I think your estimate of a few years is underestimated.
It is clear that the spent fuel management systems are the most critical features of nuclear power production and there seems to be no cohesive long range plan to manage this hazard for the next million years or so.


I don't think you understood what I said. The stuff remains toxic for a very long time but it doesn't "meltdown" after a couple of years of cooling (it can't at that point, which is the primary concern for many in a post-oil world in regards to nuclear plants). It becomes a highly isolated toxic material (though you are correct in that it remains toxic for a very long time). Hardly the apocalypse.

When I asked a nuclear physicist about specifically a post-industrial world, they told me that unless a group of people deliberately went to cooling pools (which by that time would have dried out) and dry casks, pulled the spent fuel rods out and broke them open they would not pose any real threat to future populations.
User avatar
socrates1fan
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 04 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby lper100km » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 22:34:52

socrates1fan wrote:I don't think you understood what I said. The stuff remains toxic for a very long time but it doesn't "meltdown" after a couple of years of cooling (it can't at that point, which is the primary concern for many in a post-oil world in regards to nuclear plants). It becomes a highly isolated toxic material (though you are correct in that it remains toxic for a very long time). Hardly the apocalypse.

When I asked a nuclear physicist about specifically a post-industrial world, they told me that unless a group of people deliberately went to cooling pools (which by that time would have dried out) and dry casks, pulled the spent fuel rods out and broke them open they would not pose any real threat to future populations.

Yes, it's possible I misunderstood your point though I do understand that there is no melt down threat after the cooldown period. I was thinking more of the lingering radiation. If the rods cannot be managed after that, then there is a highly toxic no go area generated with all sorts of windblown problems etc resulting. From my reference: "A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory fact sheet states that after 10 years in a cooling pool, the surface radioactivity of a spent fuel assembly is still about 10,000 rem/hour. To understand the danger that poses to health, consider that a 500-rem dose delivered to a whole person in a single exposure is fatal. Close proximity to a single 10-year-old spent fuel assembly would deliver a fatal whole-body radiation dose in about three minutes."

Maybe we have a different take on the OP. I take it that the poster was speculating on a societal collapse, presumably worldwide. In that scenario, and if it's a fast breakdown, it's more than likely that nuclear power plants become unstable for a variety of reasons. If they cannot be shut down in an orderly fashion, they are liable to meltdown as we know too well. The prospect of a couple of hundred or so going off like firecrackers is not something I care to think about.

I happen to think (hope?) that societal change will occur - is occurring - relatively slowly, though not without periods of turmoil. There should be time to implement and act on a planned shut down program as it becomes necessary and before the supporting external infrastructure fails. One hopes that there will be a ten year period after the last shutdown that will permit minimum spent fuel hazard management to proceed.
User avatar
lper100km
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 397
Joined: Mon 05 Jun 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby socrates1fan » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 22:45:12

lper100km wrote:
socrates1fan wrote:I don't think you understood what I said. The stuff remains toxic for a very long time but it doesn't "meltdown" after a couple of years of cooling (it can't at that point, which is the primary concern for many in a post-oil world in regards to nuclear plants). It becomes a highly isolated toxic material (though you are correct in that it remains toxic for a very long time). Hardly the apocalypse.

When I asked a nuclear physicist about specifically a post-industrial world, they told me that unless a group of people deliberately went to cooling pools (which by that time would have dried out) and dry casks, pulled the spent fuel rods out and broke them open they would not pose any real threat to future populations.

Yes, it's possible I misunderstood your point though I do understand that there is no melt down threat after the cooldown period. I was thinking more of the lingering radiation. If the rods cannot be managed after that, then there is a highly toxic no go area generated with all sorts of windblown problems etc resulting. From my reference: "A U.S. Nuclear Regulatory fact sheet states that after 10 years in a cooling pool, the surface radioactivity of a spent fuel assembly is still about 10,000 rem/hour. To understand the danger that poses to health, consider that a 500-rem dose delivered to a whole person in a single exposure is fatal. Close proximity to a single 10-year-old spent fuel assembly would deliver a fatal whole-body radiation dose in about three minutes."


But to get this level of radiation you would actually have to go directly to the spent fuel rods, versus a meltdown which can be very catastrophic for a large region. Ultimate point being that cooled nuclear waste is going to be irrelevant to people in a post peak oil world who live away from the plant.

I don't say this to underestimate the concerns of people against nuclear power plants and the management of their waste.

I happen to think (hope?) that societal change will occur - is occurring - relatively slowly, though not without periods of turmoil. There should be time to implement and act on a planned shut down program as it becomes necessary and before the supporting external infrastructure fails. One hopes that there will be a ten year period after the last shutdown that will permit minimum spent fuel hazard management to proceed.


Considering that many countries are already phasing out nuclear power completely, it seems to becoming less and less of a concern. I don't see an overnight collapse but rather gradual change (change we have been in since the early 2000's).
User avatar
socrates1fan
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 04 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby Plantagenet » Mon 03 Jun 2013, 23:22:10

socrates1fan wrote:Considering that many countries are already phasing out nuclear power completely, it seems to becoming less and less of a concern. I don't see an overnight collapse but rather gradual change (change we have been in since the early 2000's).


You don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, Germany is phasing out nuclear. Japan is also on track to phase out nuclear. But two countries are not "many countries." The reality is that right now CHINA AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES ARE BUILDING DOZENS OF NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

Nuclear power plants currently under development:

2013 Iran, AEOI Bushehr 1* PWR 950
2013 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 1 PWR 950
2013 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 2 PWR 950
2013 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 1* PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Ningde 1* PWR 1080
2013 Korea, KHNP Shin Wolsong 2 PWR 1000
2013 Korea, KHNP Shin-Kori 3 PWR 1350
2013 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-1 PWR 1070
2013 Argentina, CNEA Atucha 2 PHWR 692
2013 China, CGNPC Ningde 2 PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 1 PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Taishan 1 PWR 1700
2013 China, CNNC Fangjiashan 1 PWR 1080
2013 China, CNNC Fuqing 1 PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 2 PWR 1080
2014 Russia, Rosenergoatom Novovoronezh II-1 PWR 1070
2015 Russia, Rosenergoatom Rostov 3 PWR 1070
2014 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 3 PWR 440
2014 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 4 PWR 440
2014 Taiwan Power Lungmen 1 ABWR 1300
2014 China, CNNC Sanmen 1 PWR 1250
2014 China, CPI Haiyang 1 PWR 1250
2014 China, CGNPC Ningde 3 PWR 1080
2014 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 3 PWR 1080
2014 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 2 PWR 1080
2014 China, CGNPC Taishan 2 PWR 1700
2014 China, CNNC Fangjiashan 2 PWR 1080
2014 China, CNNC Fuqing 2 PWR 1080
2014 Korea, KHNP Shin-Kori 4 PWR 1350
2014? Japan, Chugoku Shimane 3 ABWR 1375
2014 India, Bhavini Kalpakkam FBR 470
2014 Russia, Rosenergoatom Beloyarsk 4 FNR 750

2015 USA, TVA Watts Bar 2 PWR 1180
2015 Taiwan Power Lungmen 2 ABWR 1300
2015 China, CNNC Sanmen 2 PWR 1250
2015 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 4 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 3 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Ningde 4 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Fangchenggang 1 PWR 1080
2015 China, CNNC Changjiang 1 PWR 650
2015 China, CNNC Changjiang 2 PWR 650
2015 China, CNNC Fuqing 3 PWR 1080
2015 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 3 PHWR 640
2015? Japan, EPDC/J Power Ohma 1 ABWR 1350

2016 Finland, TVO Olkilouto 3 PWR 1600
2016 France, EdF Flamanville 3 PWR 1600
2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Novovoronezh II-2 PWR 1070
2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-2 PWR 1200
2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Vilyuchinsk PWR x 2 70
2016 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 4 PHWR 640
2016 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 7 PHWR 640
2016 Pakistan, PAEC Chashma 3 PWR 300
2016 China, China Huaneng Shidaowan HTR 200
2016 China, CPI Haiyang 2 PWR 1250
2016 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 4 PWR 1080
2016 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 5 PWR 1080
2015 China, CNNC Hongshiding 1 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Fangchenggang 2 PWR 1080
2016 China, several others PWR

2017 USA, Southern Vogtle 3 PWR 1200
2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom Baltic 1 PWR 1200
2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom Rostov 4 PWR 1200
2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-3 PWR 1200
2017 Ukraine, Energoatom Khmelnitsky 3 PWR 1000
2017 Korea, KHNP Shin-Ulchin 1 PWR 1350
2017 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 8 PHWR 640
2017 Romania, SNN Cernavoda 3 PHWR 655
2017? Japan, JAPC Tsuruga 3 APWR 1538
2017 Pakistan, PAEC Chashma 4 PWR 300
2017 USA, SCEG Summer 2 PWR 1200
2017 China, several
2018 Korea, KHNP Shin-Ulchin 2 PWR 1350
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 19528
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby socrates1fan » Tue 04 Jun 2013, 11:50:41

Plantagenet wrote:
socrates1fan wrote:Considering that many countries are already phasing out nuclear power completely, it seems to becoming less and less of a concern. I don't see an overnight collapse but rather gradual change (change we have been in since the early 2000's).


You don't know what you are talking about.

Yes, Germany is phasing out nuclear. Japan is also on track to phase out nuclear. But two countries are not "many countries." The reality is that right now CHINA AND MANY OTHER COUNTRIES ARE BUILDING DOZENS OF NEW NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS.

Nuclear power plants currently under development:

2013 Iran, AEOI Bushehr 1* PWR 950
2013 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 1 PWR 950
2013 India, NPCIL Kudankulam 2 PWR 950
2013 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 1* PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Ningde 1* PWR 1080
2013 Korea, KHNP Shin Wolsong 2 PWR 1000
2013 Korea, KHNP Shin-Kori 3 PWR 1350
2013 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-1 PWR 1070
2013 Argentina, CNEA Atucha 2 PHWR 692
2013 China, CGNPC Ningde 2 PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 1 PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Taishan 1 PWR 1700
2013 China, CNNC Fangjiashan 1 PWR 1080
2013 China, CNNC Fuqing 1 PWR 1080
2013 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 2 PWR 1080
2014 Russia, Rosenergoatom Novovoronezh II-1 PWR 1070
2015 Russia, Rosenergoatom Rostov 3 PWR 1070
2014 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 3 PWR 440
2014 Slovakia, SE Mochovce 4 PWR 440
2014 Taiwan Power Lungmen 1 ABWR 1300
2014 China, CNNC Sanmen 1 PWR 1250
2014 China, CPI Haiyang 1 PWR 1250
2014 China, CGNPC Ningde 3 PWR 1080
2014 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 3 PWR 1080
2014 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 2 PWR 1080
2014 China, CGNPC Taishan 2 PWR 1700
2014 China, CNNC Fangjiashan 2 PWR 1080
2014 China, CNNC Fuqing 2 PWR 1080
2014 Korea, KHNP Shin-Kori 4 PWR 1350
2014? Japan, Chugoku Shimane 3 ABWR 1375
2014 India, Bhavini Kalpakkam FBR 470
2014 Russia, Rosenergoatom Beloyarsk 4 FNR 750

2015 USA, TVA Watts Bar 2 PWR 1180
2015 Taiwan Power Lungmen 2 ABWR 1300
2015 China, CNNC Sanmen 2 PWR 1250
2015 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 4 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 3 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Ningde 4 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Fangchenggang 1 PWR 1080
2015 China, CNNC Changjiang 1 PWR 650
2015 China, CNNC Changjiang 2 PWR 650
2015 China, CNNC Fuqing 3 PWR 1080
2015 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 3 PHWR 640
2015? Japan, EPDC/J Power Ohma 1 ABWR 1350

2016 Finland, TVO Olkilouto 3 PWR 1600
2016 France, EdF Flamanville 3 PWR 1600
2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Novovoronezh II-2 PWR 1070
2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-2 PWR 1200
2016 Russia, Rosenergoatom Vilyuchinsk PWR x 2 70
2016 India, NPCIL Kakrapar 4 PHWR 640
2016 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 7 PHWR 640
2016 Pakistan, PAEC Chashma 3 PWR 300
2016 China, China Huaneng Shidaowan HTR 200
2016 China, CPI Haiyang 2 PWR 1250
2016 China, CGNPC Yangjiang 4 PWR 1080
2016 China, CGNPC Hongyanhe 5 PWR 1080
2015 China, CNNC Hongshiding 1 PWR 1080
2015 China, CGNPC Fangchenggang 2 PWR 1080
2016 China, several others PWR

2017 USA, Southern Vogtle 3 PWR 1200
2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom Baltic 1 PWR 1200
2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom Rostov 4 PWR 1200
2017 Russia, Rosenergoatom Leningrad II-3 PWR 1200
2017 Ukraine, Energoatom Khmelnitsky 3 PWR 1000
2017 Korea, KHNP Shin-Ulchin 1 PWR 1350
2017 India, NPCIL Rajasthan 8 PHWR 640
2017 Romania, SNN Cernavoda 3 PHWR 655
2017? Japan, JAPC Tsuruga 3 APWR 1538
2017 Pakistan, PAEC Chashma 4 PWR 300
2017 USA, SCEG Summer 2 PWR 1200
2017 China, several
2018 Korea, KHNP Shin-Ulchin 2 PWR 1350



I certainly hope that the tone of my posts was not one of attack that would merit a response of such hostility.

New nuclear plants that are being constructed are new generation "meltdown proof" plants that would pose little threat in a post-peak oil world. Again, I certainly hope you didn't take my posts as an attack. 0_o
User avatar
socrates1fan
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 295
Joined: Wed 04 Jun 2008, 02:00:00

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 04 Jun 2013, 12:22:28

I hope you aren't taking the facts and data and numbers on new nuclear power plants as attacks and hostility.

Facts are neither friendly nor hostile---they are simply the facts.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 19528
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby C8 » Tue 04 Jun 2013, 13:34:40

Plantagenet wrote:I hope you aren't taking the facts and data and numbers on new nuclear power plants as attacks and hostility.

Facts are neither friendly nor hostile---they are simply the facts.


could you supply the link for that list?
User avatar
C8
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 08:02:48

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby Plantagenet » Tue 04 Jun 2013, 17:43:08

Sure.

new nuclear power plants worldwide

Now, would you or Socrates please provide a link for Socrates' claim that "many" countries are phasing out nuclear power so it is "less and less of a concern".

Thx.
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 19528
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 02:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby C8 » Tue 04 Jun 2013, 17:58:41

Plantagenet wrote:Sure.

new nuclear power plants worldwide

Now, would you or Socrates please provide a link for Socrates' claim that "many" countries are phasing out nuclear power so it is "less and less of a concern".

Thx.


Whoa- I am not part of that debate, ask Socrates, I am just genuinely interested in learning more about this explosion of nuclear plants planned by China and thought your list was a good starting point- especially since I don't know what the numbers behind each plant listed means, Thanks for the link- your check is in the mail!
User avatar
C8
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2013, 08:02:48

Re: Nuclear waste after collapse scenario

Unread postby mmasters » Tue 04 Jun 2013, 18:05:38

95% of waste can be recycled.

Radioactivity dissipates exponentially over distance.

There's is little to no threat.
User avatar
mmasters
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1939
Joined: Sun 16 Apr 2006, 02:00:00
Location: Mid-Atlantic

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests