Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: NY Times Science section on nuke reactors/waste

Unread postby Slowpoke » Wed 28 Dec 2005, 06:10:36

EnergySpin wrote:Slowpoke, I think the "Xmas calories" have blurred by thinking, but I see the cost of nuclear as largely irrelevant, because:
a) the inflationary trends of the FF economy are likely to get worse in the future
b) the economic impact of GW (2nd to FF) will get worse in the future
c) the economic impact of an insecure FF supply (combo of Islamist lunies+decreasing capacity) will get worse in the future
d) the cost of building the LNG infrastructure
all add up to a cummulative cost figure that far exceeds the cost of a "nuclear world".

Unless I completely missed the central idea in your post :roll:


What I meant to say is that these people (like Hippel) are so removed from the current reality that they begin to talk nonsense. They talk about "tens of billions" as if it were an astronomically gigantic sum of money, while completely ignoring the fact that real-world spending has reached far greater sums than that; afterall, the US gov't has spent (so far) 200+ billion dollars on a pointless 3-year+ war with a decrepit despotic regime (and the various grassroots fundamentalist nutters that came out of the woodwork after its fall). That they were willing to spend that kind of money on a military endeavour, and not on a civilian one... now that's an entirely different discussion topic.
User avatar
Slowpoke
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon 24 Oct 2005, 02:00:00

Re: NY Times Science section on nuke reactors/waste

Unread postby Dezakin » Wed 28 Dec 2005, 16:43:34

Maybe you should give it up and put the waste were people accept it.

http://www.privatefuelstorage.com/
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 03:00:00

Saving Nevada, Developing a Nuclear Plan

Unread postby Davage » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 02:59:20

Tanada, GoIllini, everyone,

I am concerned. As a Nevada citizen, I think of Peak Oil as a considerable problem, especially for crowded, arid Southern Nevada...the Las Vegas area. I am far from a doomer, but as I see it, rising energy costs due to PO (and imo, more to do with increasing world demand) pose a threat to Nevada's big income, tourism. We haven't seen these effects yet. If anything, tourism has increased and Vegas has continued to do very well economically despite casinos opening up around the US. But it still remains that it is a long drive (or flight) to get to in-the-middle-of-nowhere Las Vegas. As oil pressures mount, tourism will be hurt.

Strangely, I think the Yucca Mountain Waste Depositry could represent salvation. I hate the idea of a waste dump in my state, just 90 miles NW of my home, but if done right, we might all get something out of it.

What I want to do is develop a plan to reprocess the waste going into Yucca Mt. with the goals of reducing the amount of waste, reducing the radioactivity of waste, reducing the half-life of waste, and getting as much usable fuel out of the process as possible. I think of this reprocessing plan as a seed. The Nevada Test Site has already been determined to be the US's most secure nuclear research facility. With a repository and a reprocessing center, it can be an anchor for further research and development of breeder and fast breeder reactors, non-critical reactors (such as the Energy Amplifier), and similar.

For Nevada, this will bring in federal and private research dollars, reduce the long-term danger of waste stored at Yucca Mountain, create high-skilled jobs (and the low-skilled jobs to support them), encourage higher education (UNLV is trying to start a Nuclear Engineering program), and potentially have many other payoffs (including whatever money a reprocessing plant can make...or what other reactors can make selling electricity to Southern California).

For people in the Southwest US, it offers lower electricity costs as oil tops off. For everyone in the US, it offers lower fission fuel costs, a secure place for high-energy research (and manufacturing?) towards a larger future energy supply, and perhaps other benifits I'm not thinking of at the moment.

I write this after reading the fission FAQ by Tanada and GoIllini. I have a good feel for physics, math, and engineering, but I never persued it to a career. Your engineering and operational knowledge of the subject is far more in-depth then mine. I am asking for your help, and for anyone else with experiance in this area.

Ultimately, I want to present a detailed plan to Nevada lawmakers on how to get the most out of a reprocessing and energy research. I want to be able to work out basic figures like just how much we can reduce the waste into a non-usable component, just how much fuel we can get out, and how much money a private operation could make off it. Are you guys up for it?
Last edited by Ferretlover on Mon 23 Feb 2009, 21:48:56, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE State of Nevada.
User avatar
Davage
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Saving Nevada, Developing a Nuclear Plan

Unread postby EnergySpin » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 03:37:20

Davage,
Welcome to this forum.
Nice to see someone from the Nevada state who is willing to take a fresh look to the "waste problem". In a pretty short space you have outlined the necessary elements that a proper waste management program should incorporate: a) reprocessing b) breeding c) transuranic destruction in order to reduce volume, radioactivity and "disposal time" of the nuclear waste.
We could help you locate the required figures but it is up to the Nevada citizens to take it up with your lawmakers. I hope you do not dislike the French or the Japanese because such numbers will (probably) be based on their nuclear programs (hopefully they have a translation for all of us who speak neither language).
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 02:00:00

Re: Saving Nevada, Developing a Nuclear Plan

Unread postby gg3 » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 06:00:43

Excellent ideas, Davage.

If you're interested in more about the technology, see the article in December 2005 Scientific American. You should be able to get someone to send you a copy or connect you to it online via their subscription.

Meanwhile, an expanded nuclear fuel industry in Nevada could tie in with increased deployment of new-tech reactors in the West generally. I would be more than happy to see some in California's Central Valley, perhaps starting with one located between Stockton and Sacramento, or perhaps north of Sacramento.

Nuclear power could be the salvation for Nevada, Arizona, and desert areas generally: to provide not only power but also to keep the water supply pumps working. The tradeoff of course is, there would still not be enough power or enough water to continue such foolishness as people growing lush green lawns in the middle of deserts. But at least we have the potential for averting major crises in these areas.
User avatar
gg3
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: California, USA

Re: Saving Nevada, Developing a Nuclear Plan

Unread postby GoIllini » Thu 02 Feb 2006, 12:13:33

Davage wrote:Tanada, GoIllini, everyone,

I am concerned. As a Nevada citizen, I think of Peak Oil as a considerable problem, especially for crowded, arid Southern Nevada...the Las Vegas area. I am far from a doomer, but as I see it, rising energy costs due to PO (and imo, more to do with increasing world demand) pose a threat to Nevada's big income, tourism. We haven't seen these effects yet. If anything, tourism has increased and Vegas has continued to do very well economically despite casinos opening up around the US. But it still remains that it is a long drive (or flight) to get to in-the-middle-of-nowhere Las Vegas. As oil pressures mount, tourism will be hurt.

Strangely, I think the Yucca Mountain Waste Depositry could represent salvation. I hate the idea of a waste dump in my state, just 90 miles NW of my home, but if done right, we might all get something out of it.

While it's important to remember that Yucca Mountain is in the middle of the Nevada Test Range- which has all sorts of radioactive junk buried in it, I empathize with your concern. When we're talking about the waste products from reactors used to meet about 3 years of our energy needs getting buried 90 miles away from us, it seems reason for concern.

What I want to do is develop a plan to reprocess the waste going into Yucca Mt. with the goals of reducing the amount of waste, reducing the radioactivity of waste, reducing the half-life of waste, and getting as much usable fuel out of the process as possible. I think of this reprocessing plan as a seed. The Nevada Test Site has already been determined to be the US's most secure nuclear research facility. With a repository and a reprocessing center, it can be an anchor for further research and development of breeder and fast breeder reactors, non-critical reactors (such as the Energy Amplifier), and similar.

For Nevada, this will bring in federal and private research dollars, reduce the long-term danger of waste stored at Yucca Mountain, create high-skilled jobs (and the low-skilled jobs to support them), encourage higher education (UNLV is trying to start a Nuclear Engineering program), and potentially have many other payoffs (including whatever money a reprocessing plant can make...or what other reactors can make selling electricity to Southern California).

That sounds fair. While I'm not sure if breeder reactors are going to have quite the same safety margins that western reactors are, they'll still be very safe. Additionally, a meltdown at one of these plants couldn't possibly have any more impact on the surrounding area than testing a nuclear device there. Having said that, Nevada ought to get plenty of jobs and money for helping us solve our waste problem.

Reprocessing spent fuel will allow us to get 50-100 times the energy out of a kilogram of unenriched uranium, and it'll also allow us to deal with waste that will be radioactive for only 500 years.

For people in the Southwest US, it offers lower electricity costs as oil tops off. For everyone in the US, it offers lower fission fuel costs, a secure place for high-energy research (and manufacturing?) towards a larger future energy supply, and perhaps other benifits I'm not thinking of at the moment.

Low and stable electric rates (combined with, low and stable energy prices) will be one of the key factors in encouraging economic development in a state. Generating the 10 GW or so we'd generate in the process of breeding U-238 into Pu-239 would meet the needs of 10 million households and replace 10 large coal power plants that would emit around half-a-percent of the U.S's greenhouse gases.

I write this after reading the fission FAQ by Tanada and GoIllini. I have a good feel for physics, math, and engineering, but I never persued it to a career. Your engineering and operational knowledge of the subject is far more in-depth then mine. I am asking for your help, and for anyone else with experiance in this area.

Take an introductory course on nuclear engineering or energy policy at your local college, or read a textbook (I can recommend one or two), and you'll come off looking like an expert on these forums, too.

Ultimately, I want to present a detailed plan to Nevada lawmakers on how to get the most out of a reprocessing and energy research. I want to be able to work out basic figures like just how much we can reduce the waste into a non-usable component, just how much fuel we can get out, and how much money a private operation could make off it. Are you guys up for it?


My suggestion would be to build a breeder reactor or two at Yucca Mountain. To do this, however, you'd, at the very least, need to get permission from the federal government (Jimmy Carter banned commercial breeders back in the '70s). In addition, you'd probably want- and easily get- a lot of federal funding. Having the U.S's nuclear waste get buried in your backyard gives your state a lot of bargaining power, and having reprocessing plants ensure a stable supply of fuel to our nuclear reactors would be well worth the cost.

Recently, a breeder reactor was built in Japan at a cost of $9 Billion. I'm trying to find it's technical specifications; how much plutonium it produces, and how many plants it can service. I wonder if Devil has any information about France's Super-Phoenix reactor- whether it services all of France's reactors, or just a few.
User avatar
GoIllini
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat 05 Mar 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Saving Nevada, Developing a Nuclear Plan

Unread postby Davage » Fri 03 Feb 2006, 03:06:47

Everyone: Well, I have the basic engineering physics and chemistry, calculus, and some computer science...but that was a few years ago now and I didn't do much with it (was pretty lazy). I've found Wikipedia to be a great reference, and its great for general plans, but I was looking to do something more.


GoIllini: I'm afraid a nuclear engineering course is out of the question at the moment, and an energy policy or other poly-sci class (something towards the major I want to continue) is out of the question until spring 07 at the earliest. I'd certainly be interested if you could reccomend a good book or two. But...

Back to Everybody: The reason I am asking you gentlemen is that if I were to return to school for the requisit knowledge to do this all myself, I'd need at least a few years. I'd like to get this off the ground sooner.

It will take Nevadan citizens to convince Nevadan lawmakers, but that doesn't mean out-of-state experts can't take part. Frankly, those politicians are pretty nonplussed about the DOE's experts. If we can show them a way to limit radioactivity and waste volume, it would improve our chances (more so if it could be made a profitable, preferably private enterprise).

Thats why I am asking for all of your guys' help to do this now.

I look at references like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing and have no idea which reprocessing technologies are the best to use and in what combination. I don't know just how low a half-life, radioactivity, and volume we can get the waste down to, I don't know how much usable fuel, material, etc. we can get out of it, and what might be the best reactor types to pursue to make use of that fuel that normal US reactors can't use.

So I'd like to discuss the options with you guys here, get your opinions, work out a plan together, and have something to present Nevada lawmakers with by the end of the year. And in that, I don't want to just use you guys for this information (like those annoying people that don't like to do their own research), I want to work up the plan and presentation with you guys and then schedule a time to present it with you guys (and with credit going to everyone who worked on it).

As we develop the plan, I want to keep contacting those representatives, I want to get them interested. There will of course be politics involved, and I imagine leaving such things as money for accepting the waste up to them (personally, I hate that idea! I don't want waste in my state, I recognize the need to do it, and taking money for the DOEs plans leaves a foul taste in my mouth).

So, still interested? If so, it seems that we need to start with the seed, the best combination of reprocessing processes to acheive those goals of minimal waste and maximum fuel/material return, and hopefully a way a private entity could get a profit out of it. What does everyone think the best process/combination-of-processes is/are?

*******

PS: I know some of that sounds shaky, no one really knows who I am. I don't like to share personal information on the internet, but if we're going to do this, I don't mind getting to know each other better...in some greater amount of privacy then open forums. Say, e-mail? Send me a message and we'll get an e-mail group up for anyone seriously working on this.
User avatar
Davage
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Saving Nevada, Developing a Nuclear Plan

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 03 Feb 2006, 07:35:19

History is my biggest passion, studying how we got where we are and how people muddles their way through the problems in the past.

For instance did you know that in the early days of the Petroleum industry gasoline was considered a waste byproduct and dumped or burned as such?

In Copper production when the electroplating refining process was invented they had this black goo on the bottom of the tank which they dumped, until someone discovered it containes silver, gold, platinum and other rare heavy metals with a value higher than that of the copper seperated in the process?

These examples are why I took a hard look at Fission Fuel reprocessing and what do you know, the same thing is true there too! While many of the fission fragments are common elements with little or no economic value that is decidedly not true of the platinum group metals and silver.

The kicker is the linear no threshold radiation exposure system now in common use due to excessive fear of radiation makes these resources only usable for industrial application, but even so they are very valuable, they can displace industrial uses of the same materials and free them up for the consumer market driving the prices down. If by some miracle we can get the LNT standard revised to match something based on real science like the fact that people in area's of high natural background radiation have no more cancer than the average human population and make the leagle threshold that level all of these isotopes would be availible for consumer use after 10 years decay time.
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: 15482
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Saving Nevada, Developing a Nuclear Plan

Unread postby Dezakin » Fri 03 Feb 2006, 21:02:47

Why do we even need a geologic repository at all?
User avatar
Dezakin
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1569
Joined: Wed 09 Feb 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Saving Nevada, Developing a Nuclear Plan

Unread postby GoIllini » Sat 04 Feb 2006, 13:57:50

Davage wrote:I look at references like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing and have no idea which reprocessing technologies are the best to use and in what combination. I don't know just how low a half-life, radioactivity, and volume we can get the waste down to, I don't know how much usable fuel, material, etc. we can get out of it, and what might be the best reactor types to pursue to make use of that fuel that normal US reactors can't use.

From what I've heard, the U.S, France, and Russia have the most experience using Liquid Metal Cooled Fast Breeder Reactors (LCMFBRS). For more information:

http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/metal.htm

I know it seems a bit unaesthetic. We have a whole bunch of radioactive materials in an unmoderated reaction reacting in a pool full of molten sodium. The good news, however, is that the reactor isn't under pressure. That means that if there's a leak, unlike with a PWR or BWR (the two designs we use in the U.S; both of them fall under a broader category known as "Light Water Reactors", or LWRs), we won't have coolant quickly leaving the reactor. Additionally, the design would still retain a 4-ft thick concrete containment structure.

Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactors split Pu-239 in order to generate neutrons to turn U-238 into more Pu-239 than it uses up.

In normal nuclear reactors, we split U-235, or potentially, Pu-239, in order to generate heat to make electricity. In order to split U-235, we either need slow neutrons, or a lot of fast neutrons (that's how nuclear weapons work). Because it's a lot of work to turn regular uranium into having huge concentrations of U-235 in it, we opt to have 3% of our uranium be U-235, and work with using slow neutrons to split U-235, instead of having a lot of U-235 and using fast neutrons to split it. So, in order to slow down fast-moving neutrons from splitting U-235 and keep the chain reaction going, we use a moderator. Without a moderator to slow neutrons down so they can split other U-235 atoms, the reaction would stop. In U.S. reactors, both our moderator and our coolant is water. This way, if the reactor ever loses coolant, the reaction shuts down.

However, in order to turn U-238 into Pu-239, we need fast, high-energy neutrons. Thus, we can't have a moderated reaction. Instead, we need lots of Pu-239- like around 20%. It's easy to separate U-238 from Pu-239, since they're two different types of atoms with different chemical properties. So we have a big core of 80% U-238 and 20%- Pu-239. And around it, we put lots of U-238. When we factor in the U-238 that's surrounding the Pu-239 core, the reactor turns much more U-238 into Pu-239 than it burns up Pu-239. U-238 is about 140 times as abundant as U-235, which is the only thing we currently use to run nuclear reactions.

The Pu-239 can then be diluted to 3% by Uranium-238, non-fissile Plutonium (I think Pu-240 and 242 are non-fissile), or some other actinide, I think, and sent off to be used in a regular nuclear reactor.

The only big safety concern that I have about Fast-Breeder Reactors is that the only thing that can stop the reaction is the control rods, or losing critical mass. In a 3% U-235, 97% U-238 reaction, the fuel needs to be in the presence of a moderator to react. So in an LWR, we imagine that if the fuel makes it out of the reactor vessel, it's probably not going to be producing heat at 3 GWH, and if it is, there'll be water to cool it down. In an FBR, that still might be possible, somehow.

I'm also wondering if 20% Pu-239, 80% U-238 can react violently, but I'm not a nuclear engineer, and they'd probably be the only ones who can tell us that.


So I'd like to discuss the options with you guys here, get your opinions, work out a plan together, and have something to present Nevada lawmakers with by the end of the year. And in that, I don't want to just use you guys for this information (like those annoying people that don't like to do their own research), I want to work up the plan and presentation with you guys and then schedule a time to present it with you guys (and with credit going to everyone who worked on it).

I think one great way to do this might be to set up a website and get your friends from Nevada involved. Right now, I'm working on setting up a website for lobbying moderate midwestern senators and congressmen to lower the speed limit to 55, and getting my friends from Illinois involved. It'll be important for us to avoid getting any help, money, or support from the nuclear industry so Greenpeace will look crazy if they accuse us of being co-opted, but at the same time, we need to find a nuclear engineer to get on board to help, for example, reassure people that an FBR- if we choose to go that route- won't "explode like a bomb".

I'll be happy to provide space and, if I'm not too busy as a Junior in an engineering/CS degree seeking a summer internship, I might even be able to help do some design work for the website.

As we develop the plan, I want to keep contacting those representatives, I want to get them interested. There will of course be politics involved, and I imagine leaving such things as money for accepting the waste up to them (personally, I hate that idea! I don't want waste in my state, I recognize the need to do it, and taking money for the DOEs plans leaves a foul taste in my mouth).

Well, you're the Nevadan. I just want to make sure that whatever happens, that we can make things more fair for your state without completely blocking nuclear energy as an option to help prevent another energy crisis. And, if you get your senators on board, the rest of us can work on ours to allow FBRs and fund them.

So, still interested? If so, it seems that we need to start with the seed, the best combination of reprocessing processes to acheive those goals of minimal waste and maximum fuel/material return, and hopefully a way a private entity could get a profit out of it. What does everyone think the best process/combination-of-processes is/are?


FBRs are the most proven technology we have. At the very least, they'll be the easiest ones get people to accept. One of the things that I've learned from these forums is that it's important to choose simple arguments that have already been proven. Most people know that the U.S. nuclear industry has been meeting a lot of our energy needs for years without too much help from the federal government, and we haven't had a single major release of radioactive materials during that time.

France's commercial FBRs have already proven that FBRs in the U.S. can operate relatively safely. And putting the two FBRs in the Nevada Test Range would ensure that, should something happen, it couldn't possibly have any more impact on the rest of the country than a weapons test done in the '50s or 60's. We can probably dig up the numbers on the costs of France's FBRs, and demonstrate that it wouldn't be much more expensive to recycle the waste than to bury it.
User avatar
GoIllini
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat 05 Mar 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Saving Nevada, Developing a Nuclear Plan

Unread postby gg3 » Sun 05 Feb 2006, 07:18:34

It occurs to me, why do this for Nevada alone, when we can build a larger political constituency by doing this for the entire western US?

Nevada and Arizona are desert states that might otherwise be at serious risk from the decline of oil supplies, notably for providing them with pumped water. Washington, Oregon, and California are more moderate climates but still have huge energy needs, and a having baseload capacity in nuclear will enable maximum development of coastal wind resources.

So now we have potentially five states to get involved in this. At that rate you might need more than one breeder reactor to keep up with the demand!

As for the waste safety issues; at least nuclear waste is a solid material and you know where it is; whereas CO2 from fossil fuel plants goes into the atmosphere and craps up the climate at-large. And in any case, you either have nuclear waste sitting in storage doing nothing, or you have it in a reactor making new fuel, and the latter is obviously more productive than the former! And once we get our National Guard troops back from Iraq, there's no reason they couldn't provide proper escorts to shipments of nuclear materials, to prevent or fight off any potential terrorist attacks, so that takes care of the security issue as well.

I didn't know Jimmy Carter banned commercial breeder reactors. In contrast to all his other energy policy proposals, that one was definitely a mistake; but it can be corrected more readily than the mistakes due to lack of energy policy by every administration after his.
User avatar
gg3
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 3271
Joined: Mon 24 May 2004, 02:00:00
Location: California, USA

Re: Saving Nevada, Developing a Nuclear Plan

Unread postby Tanada » Sun 05 Feb 2006, 08:02:55

gg3 wrote:I didn't know Jimmy Carter banned commercial breeder reactors. In contrast to all his other energy policy proposals, that one was definitely a mistake; but it can be corrected more readily than the mistakes due to lack of energy policy by every administration after his.


He didn't. James Carter banned reprocessing fuel in the United States, and without reprocessing a Breeder looses even more ground economically to once through LWR. The 'joy' of a breeder is, it does not need fresh fissionable material, just fertile. The 'pain' of a solid fueled breeder is you have to reprocess the fuel every 18-24 months to get the waste out of it and remanufacture the fuel for another run.

With commercial reprocessing made illeagle in the USA there was no hope for a breeder until the Itegral Reactor Program came about in the 1990's, the fuel is solid but is reprocessed on site, possibly even in the same containment structure as the reactor.
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: 15482
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Nuclear Waste : Lethal And Leaking : 60 Minutes tonight

Unread postby MyOtherID » Sun 30 Apr 2006, 18:22:31

The 60-Minute report on the problems of radioactive waste called "Lethal And Leaking" shows tonight. You can watch some of it online as well.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/ ... 3896.shtml
Image
User avatar
MyOtherID
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Vegas, America's cloaca

Re: Nuclear Waste : Lethal And Leaking : 60 Minutes tonight

Unread postby ChumpusRex2 » Mon 01 May 2006, 03:37:45

While this is an important story, it is rather misleading to place this in the energy forum.

The story is not about nuclear energy waste, it is about nuclear weapons production waste. The two are very different, with radically different properties and storage requirements. What has happened with one, cannot necessarily happen to the other.
User avatar
ChumpusRex2
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat 11 Mar 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Nuclear Waste : Lethal And Leaking : 60 Minutes tonight

Unread postby MyOtherID » Mon 01 May 2006, 03:58:21

It's about the difficulty of storing and disposing of nuclear waste. What could be more germane to this forum?
User avatar
MyOtherID
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Vegas, America's cloaca

Re: Nuclear Waste : Lethal And Leaking : 60 Minutes tonight

Unread postby Tanada » Mon 01 May 2006, 05:00:12

MyOtherID wrote:It's about the difficulty of storing and disposing of nuclear waste. What could be more germane to this forum?


'Nuclear Waste' is a catch all term like 'yard waste' or 'waste water', all it means is some portion of the waste involved is radioactive. It says nothing about the intensity of the radioactivity, the type of material involved, its absorbtion by biological and botanical life or the water soluabillity of the waste. Using the term 'nuclear waste' to compare defense waste, medical waste and power reactor waste is just about as useful as comparing waste water from a pulp mill and waste water from a sewer system, while both are waste water they have very different constituents and require very different treatments to protect the environment.

Pretending otherwise is the dumbest of straw man positions to take.
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: 15482
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Nuclear Waste : Lethal And Leaking : 60 Minutes tonight

Unread postby MyOtherID » Mon 01 May 2006, 08:20:26

So your position is that waste from nuclear reactors is orders of magnitude less toxic than waste from building nuclear bombs, and that the problems of leakage into groundwater do not ever apply to it?

Wikipedia wrote:High Level Waste (HLW) arises from the use of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons processing. It contains fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and hot. HLW accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of nuclear electricity generation
User avatar
MyOtherID
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Vegas, America's cloaca

Re: Nuclear Waste : Lethal And Leaking : 60 Minutes tonight

Unread postby 0mar » Mon 01 May 2006, 09:34:03

MyOtherID wrote:So your position is that waste from nuclear reactors is orders of magnitude less toxic than waste from building nuclear bombs, and that the problems of leakage into groundwater do not ever apply to it?

Wikipedia wrote:High Level Waste (HLW) arises from the use of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor and nuclear weapons processing. It contains fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and hot. HLW accounts for over 95% of the total radioactivity produced in the process of nuclear electricity generation


I'd rather have nuke waste in my backyard than coal power plant waste.
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
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1501
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Davis, California

Re: Nuclear Waste : Lethal And Leaking : 60 Minutes tonight

Unread postby MyOtherID » Mon 01 May 2006, 10:12:32

Hello? Anyone with half a brain awake out there? Am I the only one that sees what a giant fucking nightmare nuclear waste is? Did anyone actually watch that segment? The most wealthy and powerful government in the world cannot adequately contain and process this waste, some of which dates back to the bombs dropped on Japan.

Does nobody else here get cold chills running down their spines when contemplating the supposed nuclear ramp-up we "have to have"? Human beings just cannot control this stuff, as this 60 Mins segment made painfully clear.
Last edited by MyOtherID on Mon 01 May 2006, 13:41:15, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
MyOtherID
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu 02 Mar 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Vegas, America's cloaca

Re: Nuclear Waste : Lethal And Leaking : 60 Minutes tonight

Unread postby Ludi » Mon 01 May 2006, 10:12:57

0mar wrote:I'd rather have nuke waste in my backyard than coal power plant waste.


I'd rather have neither.
Ludi
 

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests