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.
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.
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.
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
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
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
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).
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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).
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
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests