Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby frankthetank » Thu 18 Nov 2004, 11:34:36

Came across this over @ slashdot... link Heres a section...
Late this past summer, a construction project began at Indian Point that will allow the fuel to be pulled out of the pools. But it’s not going to Yucca. The government says Yucca won’t be ready until 2010. Executives in the nuclear industry say a more likely date is between 2015 and never. So instead of traveling to Nevada, Indian Point’s fuel is traveling about 100 meters, to a bluff overlooking the Hudson River. On a late-summer day this year, a backhoe tore out maple and black-walnut trees to make way for a concrete pad. Beginning next year, the first of a planned 72 six-meter-tall concrete-and-steel casks will be placed there, a configuration that adds storage capacity and thus allows the twin power plants to keep operating. Though they provide a hedge against a worst-case fuel-pool meltdown, these casks are merely another temporary solution. The fact that they’re needed at all represents the colossal failure of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Yucca plans and technology.


Whats your view on this?
User avatar
frankthetank
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Unread postby Bytesmiths » Thu 18 Nov 2004, 13:29:21

I think that local storage is fine -- as long as the plant managers be required to live and raise their families downwind of such storage areas.
:::: Jan Steinman, Communication Steward, EcoReality, a forming sustainable community. Be the change! ::::
User avatar
Bytesmiths
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed 27 Oct 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Salt Spring Island, Cascadia

Unread postby PhilBiker » Thu 18 Nov 2004, 13:44:06

I think what we really need is a large investment in fuel reprocessing.
PhilBiker
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby PhilBiker » Thu 18 Nov 2004, 13:44:54

BTW local storage casks are being used elsewhere in the USA.
PhilBiker
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby PhilBiker » Thu 18 Nov 2004, 13:45:59

I think that local storage is fine -- as long as the plant managers be required to live and raise their families downwind of such storage areas.
I'm sure the people working at the plants live nearby already. They generally do not share the general public's fear of everything "nuclear". They work with this stuff every day day in and day out.
PhilBiker
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Wed 30 Jun 2004, 02:00:00

Unread postby backstop » Thu 18 Nov 2004, 15:46:51

Bytesmiths - Isn't asking only the workforce and management to live downwind of these nuclear stockpiles rather unfair ?

Surely all shareholders and permission-giving politicians and their families should also be accomodated on this prime real estate ?

If this is seen as an unwelcome suggestion, why should the general public even consider accepting the imposition of this grossly unsustainable industry ?

regards,

Backstop
backstop
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1463
Joined: Tue 24 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Varies

Unread postby Bytesmiths » Thu 18 Nov 2004, 16:13:27

backstop wrote:Bytesmiths - Isn't asking only the workforce and management to live downwind of these nuclear stockpiles rather unfair?
Well, considering making anyone live anywhere is unlikely to happen, I think those who make the most money should be at the front of the line for "not gonna happen" suggestions.
backstop wrote:If this is seen as an unwelcome suggestion, why should the general public even consider accepting the imposition of this grossly unsustainable industry?
<b>BINGO!</b>

But the vast unwashed masses are much too stupid to draw such a connection. Or the villians have trashed the place and moved on before the public gets a shot at it, as in Love Canal.
:::: Jan Steinman, Communication Steward, EcoReality, a forming sustainable community. Be the change! ::::
User avatar
Bytesmiths
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 730
Joined: Wed 27 Oct 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Salt Spring Island, Cascadia

Unread postby frankthetank » Fri 19 Nov 2004, 00:10:49

I guess i'm with the "you break it, you buy it"...Dick Cheny&Co. should be in Fallujah going door to door looking for insurgents.

We had a nuclear power plant about 30miles south of here (its coal now) and i believe they still store fuel there. We also have one north of here about 60 miles.

If reprocessing works, they might as well use it. I personally feel nuclear has a bad rap and the real culprit is coal. I don't eat WI fish anymore because of the amount of mercury in them.

And it sure in the hell beats the garbage burner we have in this town!

RDF(Refuse Derived Fuel)AKA garbage..
User avatar
frankthetank
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 6188
Joined: Thu 16 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Southwest WI

Nuclear waste storage solved?

Unread postby Agren » Wed 24 Nov 2004, 06:12:36

Amec
A British company claims to have found the "holy grail" of the nuclear energy industry - a solution to the problem of radioactive waste disposal.


Amec, the London company that cleaned up Ground Zero in New York and rebuilt the Pentagon after the September 11 attacks, says that its latest process will enable nuclear waste to be stored safely for 200,000 years - longer than the radioactivity will last.
User avatar
Agren
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu 22 Jul 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Sweden

Unread postby Taskforce_Unity » Wed 24 Nov 2004, 06:31:45

Seems like a very energy intensive process. i wonder what the figures are
User avatar
Taskforce_Unity
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 479
Joined: Mon 22 Nov 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Holland

Move the Nuclear Waste Around--That Will Fix Everything!

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Mon 14 Feb 2005, 21:05:50

http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory ... /story.htm
Environmental campaign group Greenpeace organised the protest near Turin to publicise that the waste -- the last of 13 convoys -- would eventually return to Italy. They say the government has no policy on what to do with it.

"The attempt to export spent nuclear fuel abroad is a way of playing for time, a subterfuge to leave for the next generation the burden of taking decisions which are morally and politically beyond the wit of the current governing class," a Greenpeace statement said.
BabyPeanut
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Mon 14 Feb 2005, 21:36:44

Are you trying to tell me that it is impossible to dig a 1 square mile hole in the ground to a depth of 1000 feet? You build that, add 50 foot cement walls on each side, throw that sh*t in there, and cover it over again with a 50 foot wall. But this thing out in area 51 or some place like that.

Even better, do that and don't tell anyone where it is! We never need to know. Why is it so hard to dig a hole and throw the nuclear waste in there?

Oh, but Tyler, the radiation! THAT'S WHAT THE 50 FOOT THICK WALLS ARE FOR.

But Tyler, eventually the stuff will leak out. First off, I don't really care. The point of putting it in area 51 is that NO ONE lives there. If nuke waste was dangerous if you lived within 1000 miles of it, everyone would be dead by now.

Oh, but Terrorism, the terrorists will take it and make dirty bombs! Not going to happen. How can anyone break up 50 feet of cement without anyone noticing? And the hole is in Area 51, you walk in there, they kill you.
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Unread postby 0mar » Mon 14 Feb 2005, 21:40:11

lol they are trying to hide that shit in a mountain man. 50 feet of concrete is going to break eventually.
Joseph Stalin
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything. "
User avatar
0mar
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Unread postby Tyler_JC » Mon 14 Feb 2005, 22:55:15

The question is, what does "eventually" mean? 100 year? 1000 years? Beyond the next 3-4 generations, my level of care drops to the "who won American Idol?" level. Everything breaks eventually, but won't the stuff stop being dangerous "eventually?"

And what if it breaks and leaks out everywhere in 100 years? Wouldn't it be easier to have it all in one place. The tribal chiefs of the time can put up a sign that says, "Don't go past this point. There are evil spirits who will suck out your soul." All of the little people will look at that and go, "While I guess I'd better not go any further."

If anyone walks to far and gets killed, WELCOME TO NATURAL SELECTION! The stupid die of radiation created by the stupid people who came before them who didn't think to put up more signs. I'm willing to allow 1% of humanity to die of radiation (the upper limit for this assuming everyone tries walking into the Nevada desert) if it means hanging on to civilization for another 10-15 years. If I'm willing to make that sacrifice, you can bet the "important" people are willing to do it.
Tyler_JC
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 5438
Joined: Sat 25 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Boston, MA

Unread postby gg3 » Mon 14 Feb 2005, 23:43:36

...vs. how many millions of tons of carbon dioxide up in the atmosphere where we can't get it back...?

I'd rather have a big concrete hole full of radwaste.

BTW, 2000-year-old Roman concrete is still holding up nicely in ancient Roman roads and buildings. The lucky Romans just happened to have natural mineral deposits that were equivalent to today's portland cement, i.e. add sand and gravel and water, and you have concrete. And in modern times the techniques for making the stuff impervious have been known since the 1930s.

By the end of 2000 years, either we've managed to render the radwaste inert, or we've found a way to get more energy from it, or we've gone back to agrarian tribalism, "bad spirits - stay out!" signs included.
User avatar
gg3
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: California, USA

Unread postby No-Oil » Tue 15 Feb 2005, 05:30:42

All the noise about Nuclear wste is just that raw noise. Nuke waste is not bad or harmful, or difficult to store, but it is difficult to get anyone to allow it near them.

Both the USA & Russia have large tracks of land that are already contaminated beyond use from nuke bomb testing. The US mushroom fields are a cratered wasteland that are already beyond belief or human use. No need to go to great expense to build underground silos for storage & then worry about ground water ingress etc. Just put it in a transport vessel & take it to these places that are already wasted. Then store it in suface bunkers like we do with the nuke bombs & conventional ammo.

This is safe, secure, inspectable, maintainable etc etc. To every endeavour there is a risk, if people want the lights to keep working, then a bit of residual radiation is not a problem. Shit I saw lambs born crippled & disformed here in the UK after Chynoble (sp?) which means that I was also breathing the contamination. Most of the UK population is still here & that level of exposure was higher than what you'd get from spent fuel in storage !

Wait till the lights go out & see how many people object to nuke power then !
The roller coaster is still climbing, but it's near the top now !
Where there's a WAR there's a WAY :(
User avatar
No-Oil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 241
Joined: Fri 31 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby BabyPeanut » Tue 15 Feb 2005, 07:06:27

No-Oil wrote:All the noise about Nuclear wste is just that raw noise. Nuke waste is not bad or harmful

Cancer is fun too and don't forget...

Image
BabyPeanut
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 3279
Joined: Tue 17 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: 39° 39' N 77° 77' W or thereabouts

Unread postby Doly » Tue 15 Feb 2005, 07:19:37

Everything is relative. Increasing a bit your chances of getting cancer doesn't seem that worrying when you are trying to avoid starvation.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3881
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Move the Nuclear Waste Around--That Will Fix Everything!

Unread postby eric_b » Tue 15 Feb 2005, 11:24:10

Weeell, I think there's too much hysteria over stuff
like nuclear waste. Yeah, it's nasty stuff, but it's not
that bad. And quite a bit of it can be recycled in breeder
reactors.

It's becoming increasingly clear the danger from CO2
buildup outweigh any problems with nuke waste, IMO.
People can't 'see' CO2, so they tend not to care about it.

Also, coal fired electric plants (which are being built in
record numbers) spew more naturally occuring radioactivity
from their smokestacks then a nuke plant ever does.
Plus you've got the problem of all the heavy metals
(especially mercury) from coal fired plants ending up in
the food chain. Mercury is so bad that they now (here
in the midwest) recommend people limit the amount
of fish they eat from local lakes.

And all the soot and particulate matter from coal fired
power plants is the primary cause of 'global dimming'.
And haze and smog. As an amateur astronomer I like
good clear weather, something we're seeing less and less
of.

Pick your poision. :shock:
User avatar
eric_b
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Fri 14 Jan 2005, 03:00:00
Location: us

Unread postby Eustacian » Tue 15 Feb 2005, 20:01:28

Tyler_JC wrote:Are you trying to tell me that it is impossible to dig a 1 square mile hole in the ground to a depth of 1000 feet? You build that, add 50 foot cement walls on each side, throw that sh*t in there, and cover it over again with a 50 foot wall. But this thing out in area 51 or some place like that.

Even better, do that and don't tell anyone where it is! We never need to know. Why is it so hard to dig a hole and throw the nuclear waste in there?

Oh, but Tyler, the radiation! THAT'S WHAT THE 50 FOOT THICK WALLS ARE FOR.

But Tyler, eventually the stuff will leak out. First off, I don't really care. The point of putting it in area 51 is that NO ONE lives there. If nuke waste was dangerous if you lived within 1000 miles of it, everyone would be dead by now.

Oh, but Terrorism, the terrorists will take it and make dirty bombs! Not going to happen. How can anyone break up 50 feet of cement without anyone noticing? And the hole is in Area 51, you walk in there, they kill you.


Easier answer - vitrification. Store the waste indefinetly in glass. That's what we're doing at Hanford right now. So far as I know, you would end up killing yourself before you could extract enough radioactive material to make a dirty bomb. It doesn't leak, it doesn't require 50 foot walls and it only has to use one of the most abundant resources on earth - silica.
User avatar
Eustacian
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon 20 Sep 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Seattle, WA, USA

Next

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests