Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Sun 19 May 2019, 02:06:21

diemos wrote:The data I'd like to have is air sampling measurements through HEPA filters in the Fukushima exclusion zone. Any sort of activity that would kick dust up into the air would seem problematic.

Agreed - nevertheless, it's still been over-scrubbed and over-cleaned. They should just get people back there, living and gardening and mowing and washing. Eventually most of the bad stuff would go down the drains or through waste disposal.
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 28 Feb 2020, 11:04:54

US cleanup mission set for big advances in 2020

This year will be a "milestone" in the USA's cleanup of legacy nuclear sites, including the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico, as well as facilities in Idaho, Savannah River and Hanford, a senior US Department of Energy Office of Environmental Management officer has told stakeholders. In a separate development, miners at WIPP have completed the "rough cut" of the next area where transuranic waste will be emplaced.

As well as the start of construction of a new utility shaft at WIPP (which will provide added ventilation and allow greater flexibility for mining operations there), EM expects 2020 to bring the start of operations at major liquid waste facilities at its Savannah River and Idaho sites, as well as construction work at a plant to treat tank waste at the Hanford site, EM Senior Advisor Ike White said. The Hanford facility is expected to begin operations "within a few years", he said.

Addressing the Energy Communities Alliance - identified by EM as a "key stakeholder audience" - on 31 January, White said 2020 would see a "leap forward" in the office's ability to tackle tank waste, the largest and one of its most challenging environmental risks.

"Collectively, [these capabilities] represent a fundamental shift for EM as we complete these long-running construction projects and focus on waste treatment operations," he said. "Not only will 2020 serve as a milestone year for EM and the department, but I believe it will start off a decade of significant progress across the programme," he added.

Next panel for WIPP


WIPP is the USA's deep geologic repository for defence-related transuranic nuclear waste. Sealed drums of waste are placed 2150 feet ((655 metres) beneath the surface in panels mined into salt rock. Mining at WIPP is timed so a disposal panel is only ready when it is needed for waste emplacement, because of the natural movement of the salt that will eventually permanently encapsulate the waste.

WIPP's first six panels have been filled, and waste emplacement is taking place in the seventh. When Panel 7 is full, expected in late 2021, it will be sealed and waste emplacement will then move to Panel 8. Each of WIPP's panels consists of seven rooms that are 33 feet wide, 13 feet high, and 300 feet long. The rough cut of the new disposal area, which has now been completed, gives the panel its shape. The ribs, or walls, will now be widened, and salt will be excavated from the floor to create the necessary height so waste canisters can be stacked in the rooms. Bolts are installed to stabilise the salt as mining progresses. Once mining is done, crews will install lighting, steel bulkheads, and wire mesh on the walls.

Work on Panel 8 began in late 2013, but was interrupted for more than three years after operations at WIPP were suspended following separate fire and radiological events in 2014. Waste emplacement resumed in January 2017 and mining operations in January 2018.

WIPP
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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Sun 01 Mar 2020, 21:44:14

Yes, some of those earlier military experimental sites got a bit messy.
It's sad that so many people today associate those early rushes to the bomb with the same word, 'nukular', that today represents Gen3+ or even Gen4 reactors that could supply us will all the reliable, abundant carbon neutral power we could wish, for billions of years.
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Fri 25 Sep 2020, 20:50:12

Bill would create new federal research program for nuclear waste disposal

In Europe and Asia, spent nuclear fuel is routinely recycled so it can be used again — which cuts down on how much high-level waste must eventually be stored. In the U.S., spent fuel is discarded with more than 90 percent of its usable material still intact, filling up “beachfront nuclear waste dumps” like the one at San Onofre .
Image
A federal bill that would pump a half-billion dollars into America’s long-stalled effort to find a permanent home for such waste would nudge reprocessing of spent fuel back on the table and prod officials toward big-picture solutions. The Spent Nuclear Fuel Solutions Research and Development Act, by Rep. Mike Levin, D-San Juan Capistrano, would create, among many other things, “an advanced fuel cycle research, development, demonstration, and commercial application program” at the U.S. Department of Energy.

The program would be charged with investigating improvements to the fuel cycle, advanced reactor concepts “while minimizing environmental and public health and safety impacts,” and much-needed storage options, from dry casks to deep geological boreholes. Boreholes have long been considered the single best method to isolate nuclear waste for the long haul, but efforts have been plagued by opposition from communities unwilling to be home to the nation’s nuclear waste.

A related bill, introduced by Reps. Conor Lamb, D-Pennsylvania, and Dan Newhouse, R-Washington, would primarily boost research and development of next-generation nuclear reactors at the DOE to help tackle climate change — a concept not likely to go over well in California, which has a ban on new nuclear development until there’s a permanent repository for the waste. But the Lamb-Newhouse bill also would authorize a used fuel research and development program that could also include reprocessing.

Levin’s program would not be funded from the $43.5 billion Nuclear Waste Fund, which came from utility customers who used electricity generated by nuclear plants, but instead would come from the DOE’s budget, Levin’s office said. It would total more than $507 million over five years.

“The spent nuclear fuel at San Onofre and other decommissioned plants across the country poses serious risks to our health and safety, and we must strive to find new solutions to store and dispose of the waste responsibly,” Levin said in a prepared statement. “This bill would bring us one step closer to getting the waste at San Onofre off of our beach, and that remains one of my top priorities.”

The bill is part of a legislative package heading to the House floor later this week.
Recycling waste

Reprocessing, however, has had a fraught history in the United States. The technology to chemically separate and recover fissionable plutonium from used nuclear fuel was developed after World War II and was an integral part of the nuclear plan in America, according to a Congressional Research Service report.

But reprocessing fuel produces material that can easily be used in nuclear bombs, while regular spent fuel does not. After India started showing off its nuclear muscle in the 1970s, America got spooked. President Gerald Ford suspended commercial reprocessing and recycling of plutonium in 1976, concerned that it could fall into the wrong hands. A year later, President Jimmy Carter issued an executive order that etched the policy into stone.

President Ronald Reagan reversed Carter’s order, but the work never really ramped back up. Congress soon passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act — committing the federal government to accept and store spent commercial nuclear fuel in exchange for payments from the nuclear plant operators — so there wasn’t much more impetus for reprocessing.

Levin’s bill instructs the DOE to “ensure all activities and designs incorporate state-of-the-art safeguards, technologies and techniques to reduce risk of proliferation.”

While common around the world, reprocessing has strong critics. The Union of Concerned Scientists calls it dangerous, dirty, and expensive.

“While some supporters of a U.S. reprocessing program believe it would help solve the nuclear waste problem, reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste. Worse, reprocessing would make it easier for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons materials, and for nations to develop nuclear weapons programs,” the watchdog group says in its primer on the topic.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future rejected calls for reprocessing in 2012, saying “all spent fuel reprocessing or recycle options generate waste streams that require a permanent disposal solution.”

“Nuclear waste reprocessing does not benefit the environment — it only benefits the nuclear industry, and then not by much,” said Bart Ziegler, president of the Samuel Lawrence Foundation. “It’s a very financially costly process and lends to more waste effluent.”

David Victor, a UC San Diego professor and chair of a volunteer committee advising on San Onofre’s tear-down, said he sees the bill trying to create a big tent of supporters. Reprocessing wouldn’t make much sense in the U.S. unless there was a huge new demand for nuclear fuel, he said by email.

Having options and alternatives for off-site storage or disposal of spent fuel will be beneficial to removing it from San Onofre, said Southern California Edison by email. “We appreciate Rep. Mike Levin’s effort to provide those through his legislation.”


https://www.ocregister.com/2020/09/21/b ... -disposal/
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Fri 25 Sep 2020, 20:53:51

Moving in the right direction but not quite there. The proper way to dispose of the "waste" is to burn it in fast neutron reactors. This requires restoration of the fuel reprocessing capacity that was killed off by the idiot Carter. Waste storage is not some separate problem that requires its own unique solutions.

There will still be some left over waste in the form of actinides that require storage for about 300 years to break down. But this is vastly easier than trying to store "waste" for thousands of years.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby eclipse » Fri 25 Sep 2020, 22:57:43

I agree! Burn it!


“While some supporters of a U.S. reprocessing program believe it would help solve the nuclear waste problem, reprocessing would not reduce the need for storage and disposal of radioactive waste. Worse, reprocessing would make it easier for terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons materials, and for nations to develop nuclear weapons programs,” the watchdog group says in its primer on the topic.

The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future rejected calls for reprocessing in 2012, saying “all spent fuel reprocessing or recycle options generate waste streams that require a permanent disposal solution.”

Seriously - what's WRONG with these people?

I have a non-technical humanities background, but once I heard about breeder reactors that do this magical thing of burning nuclear waste and getting 60 to 90 times the energy out of it I immediately understood the EROEI implications for nuclear power. Breeders don't require high energy inputs like uranium mining and reprocessing - and so their EROEI calculations are through the ROOF - paying back several THOUSANDS of times the energy it took to build the reactor! Indeed, even with my non-technical background I couldn't help myself and read a few books on it and while I didn't even do high-school physics and chemistry I know enough about this to overturn the assumptions of the average man in the street. These people are running on emotion - and it really bugs me.

BOMBS? Reprocessing is called pyroprocessing. It's a giant electro-chemical bathtub that separates out the good from the bad collects all the good stuff together. It will burn in the reactor, but it won't go boom. It's not bomb-grade material. It doesn't separate out only the bomb-grade stuff - but collects all the fertile and fissionable stuff together.

BREEDING: Indeed, from a reactor fuel process this is a bit of a challenge. Having all the fertile stuff in there means it's not ready to fission yet. Think of it as wet firewood. And just as you might put wet firewood around a roaring central fire so the wet stuff dries out - they put the fertile fuel rods around the outside of a working reactor core to soak up any spare neutrons and this gradually transmutes the fertile stuff into fissile stuff. The 'wet firewood' is drying out. After a year, a breeder reactor might have made a few percent more fuel than it uses in this way. (It's not a perpetual motion machine - but just accessing the uranium that's otherwise unused in the control rods.)

WASTE: Pyroprocessing also reduces the final high level waste (the broken atoms they call fission products) to about 10% the mass and makes it much 'hotter'. That's a good thing! Because the more radioactive something is, the faster it fizzles out. Estimates are you can melt this high level stuff down (vitrify it) into a ceramic tablet and store it under the reactor-park for about 300 years. Forget building multi-billion dollar storage caverns designed to last 200,000 years. This waste could be melted down and stored on site. Uranium goes in, and never comes out again. Or if it is cheaper to have a few big vitrifying plants, waste could be transported in those indestructible boxes with military guard.

Nuclear waste is not a problem - it is the SOLUTION to climate change and peak oil! The majority of what most people call 'nuclear waste' is fuel - and America has so much they could run their country for the next 1000 years on it alone. The final broken atoms they call 'fission products' only amount to 1 golf ball of waste per person lifetime - and no carbon. It's a thing of beauty. Here's a 4 minute Argonne labs video on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlMDDhQ ... e=youtu.be
Dr James Hansen recommends breeder reactors that convert nuclear 'waste' into 1000 years of clean energy for America, and can charge all our light vehicles and generate "Blue Crude" for heavy vehicles.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recharge/
User avatar
eclipse
Coal
Coal
 
Posts: 468
Joined: Fri 04 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Sydney

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby dissident » Sat 26 Sep 2020, 08:26:44

Right on target.

The clowns who attack reprocessing as a security risk are either idiots or paid shills. Even the notion that fast neutron reactors allow terrorists to get their hands on plutonium is total nonsense. It's not like the plutonium is sitting there in luggable chunks ready to be picked up. Terrorists can hardly engage in reprocessing themselves. This is not like making Sarin or some bombs in a basement. Reprocessing is a complex industrial process that many countries cannot deploy let alone terrorists. And the Plutonium is not accessible during the reprocessing operation also since it is mixed with other elements such as Uranium 238.

Terrorists getting their hands on nuclear warheads was a more plausible problem but they failed to do so even during the break up of the USSR and all the serious security problems it had in the 1990s.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 10 Nov 2021, 01:54:55

Draft national programme on spent fuel and radioactive waste management and report on its environmental impacts

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, and the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority published a draft of the national programme for spent fuel and radioactive waste management on 5 August 2021. A report on the environmental impacts of the programme was released at the same time.

The ministries and the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority request comments on the draft programme and environmental report from authorities, operators in the sector, citizens and communities by 10 September 2021.

The national programme is a comprehensive plan aimed at ensuring that all spent fuel and radioactive waste generated in Finland is managed safely.

The national programme includes general objectives, principles, amounts and locations of spent fuel and radioactive waste management as well as an estimate of the costs and schedule of waste management. All waste management measures are to be implemented without undue delay.

Finland is required by the Directive on management of spent fuel and radioactive waste (2011/70/Euratom) to formulate a national programme. In national legislation, provisions on the programme concerning the use of nuclear energy and radiation are laid down in the Nuclear Energy Act and the Radiation Act, respectively.

An environmental impact assessment was carried out during the preparation of the programme. The assessment includes a description of the operating environment, objectives and likely significant environmental impacts of the project. The environmental impact assessment aims to take better account of environmental impacts when preparing and approving the national programme, to promote sustainable development, and to improve the public’s access to information and their opportunities for participation.
Comments on the draft programme and environmental impact assessment report can be submitted online, by email or by letter

The draft national programme and the environmental report have been published on the website of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment at www.tem.fi/kansallinen-ohjelma, on the website of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health at www.stm.fi, and on the website of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority at www.stuk.fi

The documents will be published online in Finnish. Their summaries will also be available in Swedish and English.

The postal address of the Registry of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment is PO Box 32, FI-00023 GOVERNMENT. The visiting address of the Registry of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment is Ritarikatu 2 B, 00170 Helsinki.

Inquiries:

Linda Kumpula, Senior Specialist, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, tel. +358 50 412 4425 or linda.kumpula(at)tem.fi
Mia Ylä-Mella, Senior Inspector, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, tel. +358 9 759 88 202 or mia.yla-mella(at)stuk.fi
Venla Kuhmonen, Inspector, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, tel. +358 9 759 88 327 or venla.kuhmonen(at)stuk.fi


LINK
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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby theluckycountry » Thu 17 Feb 2022, 20:44:11

Plantagenet wrote:
I once had a big argument with a friend over the importance of methane leaks. This was back when Obama was pushing NG power plants as clean energy and my friend believed the BS and maintained that methane was a "clean fuel"


If I went back through the posts here I'm sure I'd find many who were 'believers' in the so called Hydrogen economy that was raved about in the 00's, plenty were sucked in by that. And I bet if this forum went back to 1950 there would be dozens raving about nuclear power and how it was going to be so cheap they wouldn't meter it lol. The talking heads back then said that, but I doubt they actually believed it themselves. It was no doubt just industry and government spin to sucker a nation full of dullards into allowing unbelievably dangerous power plants to be built in their communities. After all, they had billions worth of uranium enrichment infrastructure that needed to find new markets.

Nuclear is worth considering along side all these modern renewable miracles, not in the sense of it's value as an domestic energy source, but only as an example of how long it takes for a promise to show itself as a blatant lie. Those plants were incredibly expensive and many are now due for decommissioning but they can't do it because of the inordinate cost of the process. So they just keep re-licensing them. What a timebomb.
après moi le déluge
theluckycountry
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 19 Feb 2022, 18:39:53

theluckycountry wrote:
Plantagenet wrote:
I once had a big argument with a friend over the importance of methane leaks. This was back when Obama was pushing NG power plants as clean energy and my friend believed the BS and maintained that methane was a "clean fuel"


If I went back through the posts here I'm sure I'd find many who were 'believers' in the so called Hydrogen economy that was raved about in the 00's, plenty were sucked in by that. And I bet if this forum went back to 1950 there would be dozens raving about nuclear power and how it was going to be so cheap they wouldn't meter it lol. The talking heads back then said that, but I doubt they actually believed it themselves. It was no doubt just industry and government spin to sucker a nation full of dullards into allowing unbelievably dangerous power plants to be built in their communities. After all, they had billions worth of uranium enrichment infrastructure that needed to find new markets.

Nuclear is worth considering along side all these modern renewable miracles, not in the sense of it's value as an domestic energy source, but only as an example of how long it takes for a promise to show itself as a blatant lie. Those plants were incredibly expensive and many are now due for decommissioning but they can't do it because of the inordinate cost of the process. So they just keep re-licensing them. What a timebomb.


In the USA at least that is blatantly incorrect. Over here every nuclear plant that sells electricity has to set aside a small percentage of every earning into a decomissioning fund that the utility can not touch until the plant is officially taken permanently offline. Those funds are more than adequate to pay for all incurred expenses of defueling the reactor and storing the spent nuclear fuel pending the oft promised federal fuel repository that was supposed to have been opened in the mid 1990's. The government decided it is cheaper to just keep storing the spent fuel on site in dry cask storage than to actually build license and operate the federal repository.
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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Sat 19 Feb 2022, 19:13:48

Vermont's experience with the decommissioned Vermont Yankee nuclear plant confirms that state of affairs.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14897
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby theluckycountry » Sat 19 Feb 2022, 21:30:09

Tanada wrote:
In the USA at least that is blatantly incorrect. Over here every nuclear plant that sells electricity has to set aside a small percentage of every earning into a decomissioning fund that the utility can not touch until the plant is officially taken permanently offline.


In the city north of me they decommissioned an old coal fired plant some years back. It was demolished and unit complexes and a tennis center reside there now. When you de-commission a Ship you sell it for scrap, sink it as part of an artificial reef or make a memorial tourist attraction out of it.

Nuclear power plants? Yes, funds are probably set aside to pull the rods. And what's left behind, a highly irradiated core-room and associated pipework, heat exchanges, cooling pools, that for all practical purposes can't be dismantled. So what happens? You end up with a nation dotted with no go zones surrounded by razor wire and guards no doubt. But hell, it's America, I read they has a plan to store the spent fuel they can't use in concrete freeway bridges. That place is a toxic waste dump!
après moi le déluge
theluckycountry
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby theluckycountry » Sat 19 Feb 2022, 21:39:02

vtsnowedin wrote:Vermont's experience with the decommissioned Vermont Yankee nuclear plant confirms that state of affairs.


Confirms that state of affairs eh? If they put a bowl of dog poo in front of you and told you it was breakfast sausage, would you eat it? I wonder...

2018
As the San Onofre nuclear power plant is decommissioned over the next 20 years, the twin domes visible from Interstate 5 will disappear. But the most dangerous legacy of the plant — thousands of highly radioactive spent fuel rods — may remain, just out of sight of the freeway.

There is no guarantee the spent fuel rods will be removed, and so far efforts to find alternative sites have gone nowhere.
https://www.kpbs.org/news/midday-editio ... ng-problem


2022
In a rare bipartisan move on Capitol Hill, Rep. Mike Levin, D-Oceanside and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Alpine have re-introduced a bill that would remove spent nuclear waste from San Onofre.
https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/02 ... nt-revived

Why remove it? The location is already a multi-millennium toxic site, perfect for storage.

As you see, what they tell you is going happen and what actually happens are often two different things Vt. Best you keep away from breakfast sausage, just in case.
après moi le déluge
theluckycountry
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 19 Feb 2022, 23:19:24

theluckycountry wrote:
vtsnowedin wrote:Vermont's experience with the decommissioned Vermont Yankee nuclear plant confirms that state of affairs.


Confirms that state of affairs eh? If they put a bowl of dog poo in front of you and told you it was breakfast sausage, would you eat it? I wonder...

2018
As the San Onofre nuclear power plant is decommissioned over the next 20 years, the twin domes visible from Interstate 5 will disappear. But the most dangerous legacy of the plant — thousands of highly radioactive spent fuel rods — may remain, just out of sight of the freeway.

There is no guarantee the spent fuel rods will be removed, and so far efforts to find alternative sites have gone nowhere.
https://www.kpbs.org/news/midday-editio ... ng-problem


2022
In a rare bipartisan move on Capitol Hill, Rep. Mike Levin, D-Oceanside and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Alpine have re-introduced a bill that would remove spent nuclear waste from San Onofre.
https://www.kpbs.org/news/local/2022/02 ... nt-revived

Why remove it? The location is already a multi-millennium toxic site, perfect for storage.

As you see, what they tell you is going happen and what actually happens are often two different things Vt. Best you keep away from breakfast sausage, just in case.


Where do you come up with this bizarre multi millennium danger zone nonsense? Whoever taught you how radiation works did a terrible job of it because that is not at all how it works. The longer the half life the less danger you have from exposure to the substance. The reason they do a "20 year clean up" is first they go through and pull out al the stuff that is not radioactive above background levels it already had. They also take all the stuff that puts out dangerous levels and move it to isolation in cooling pools or dry cask storage depending on how "hot" it is. Then they just wait a while for the short lived activation products like Iron 55 and Iron 59 to decay away to stable isotopes. That takes about 20 years for the Iron 55 and just about 18 months for the Iron 59. At that point the iron rebar that had been activated by neutrons can be scrapped and nobody will know the difference because the remaining trace radiation is far below background levels. Mostly the neutron activated material is limited to the steel pressure vessel because Neutrons do not travel very far before they decay into hydrogen aka Protons that quickly react with the air because they are fully ionized. The steel of the pipes and heat exchanger receive very little if any neutron radiation so their materials do not become radioactive from exposure to the coolant.

As for the waste issue we have a full thread topic about how criminally stupid it is that the US government has dropped the ball by first making reprocessing illegal in 1976 and then cancelling the mandatory Federal spent fuel repository in the 1990's. There are a hundred option for spent nuclear fuel some much better than others but our government has determined that ignoring the issue gets the politicians more votes than actually solving the issue. No other major nation with nuclear power is so backward on the issue of recycling spent fuel but it became a political talking point here in 1975 and the issue has remained unresolved since then.
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.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby theluckycountry » Sun 20 Feb 2022, 17:31:25

Tanada wrote:
Where do you come up with this bizarre multi millennium danger zone nonsense? ... The reason they do a "20 year clean up" is first they go through and pull out al the stuff that is not radioactive above background levels it already had. They also take all the stuff that puts out dangerous levels and move it to isolation in cooling pools or dry cask storage depending on how "hot" it is...


That's just theory, it's never been done and may NOT ever be done. I think we all know by now that just because industry and government makes a claim about a future course of action it means nothing. Look at your roads and bridges, dams and pipelines. Every politician that comes to power has been promising action there for decades, but all you see is more decay. Will your current President set aside 500 Billion for it? He just signed off on 750 Billion for the military, the money is there, but no will to spend it things to make the lives of the average citizen safer at home.

Can you provide one example of this dismantling process that has been taken to completion in America's private nuclear power industry? Or anywhere in the world? I know not of one, if you can, I'll concede the argument Tanada.

https://www.nytimes.com/1986/11/25/scie ... ntled.html
Utilities now have three options for retiring reactors: mothballing, entombing and dismantling. Non-nuclear power plants can be demolished as cheaply and easily as any other structure. But large portions of nuclear plants become contaminated by radioactivity, which lasts for centuries. They therefore require careful treatment, even after they are retired.

Mothballing involves removing the fuel as well as guarding the structures and monitoring radiation. Initially, it is quite cheap. Since the plant remains radioactive for centuries, however, the continuing security and monitoring could make it more expensive than the other options


"Initially, it is quite cheap" And obviously that's the course of action cash strapped energy companies will follow Tanada. You should research what happened in Britain when Electricity production was privatized, the companies made out like bandits for decades but did no regular maintenance on plant and equipment. Everything ran into the ground and eventually the Government was forced to take over the mess ensure reliable power delivery.
après moi le déluge
theluckycountry
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby AdamB » Sun 20 Feb 2022, 17:59:14

theluckycountry wrote:
Tanada wrote:
Where do you come up with this bizarre multi millennium danger zone nonsense? ... The reason they do a "20 year clean up" is first they go through and pull out al the stuff that is not radioactive above background levels it already had. They also take all the stuff that puts out dangerous levels and move it to isolation in cooling pools or dry cask storage depending on how "hot" it is...


That's just theory, it's never been done and may NOT ever be done. I think we all know by now that just because industry and government makes a claim about a future course of action it means nothing.

Can you provide one example of this dismantling process that has been taken to completion in America's private nuclear power industry? Or anywhere in the world? I know not of one, if you can, I'll concede the argument Tanada.



Well then shut up already. Canoe to New Zealand and get some education.

Decommissioning experienceConsiderable experience has been gained in decommissioning various types of nuclear facility. About 115 commercial power reactors, 48 experimental or prototype power reactors, as well as over 250 research reactors and several fuel cycle facilities, have been retired from operation. Of the 160+ power reactors including experimental and prototype units, at least 17 have been fully dismantled, over 50 are being dismantled, over 50 are in Safstor, three have been entombed, and for others the decommissioning strategy is not yet specified.(Ships and numerous submarines have also been decommissioned but are not included in this paper.)


Link for the mining colony residents who weren't taught to google.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby Subjectivist » Mon 21 Feb 2022, 12:17:53

theluckycountry wrote:
"Initially, it is quite cheap" And obviously that's the course of action cash strapped energy companies will follow Tanada. You should research what happened in Britain when Electricity production was privatized, the companies made out like bandits for decades but did no regular maintenance on plant and equipment. Everything ran into the ground and eventually the Government was forced to take over the mess ensure reliable power delivery.


Big Rock Point nuclear plant in Michigan has been remediated back to woodlot status as of 2012 after closing in the 1990's.
https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommi ... point.html
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 21 Feb 2022, 16:34:53

Subjectivist wrote:Big Rock Point nuclear plant in Michigan has been remediated back to woodlot status as of 2012 after closing in the 1990's.
https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommi ... point.html


Looks like theminingcolonyresident is so ill informed he will no longer comment on this topic. Now we'll see what mining colony residents are like when it comes to honesty.
Plant Thu 27 Jul 2023 "Personally I think the IEA is exactly right when they predict peak oil in the 2020s, especially because it matches my own predictions."

Plant Wed 11 Apr 2007 "I think Deffeyes might have nailed it, and we are just past the overall peak in oil production. (Thanksgiving 2005)"
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 9290
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: The Methane Thread pt. 2

Unread postby theluckycountry » Mon 21 Feb 2022, 17:07:24

Subjectivist wrote:
Big Rock Point nuclear plant in Michigan has been remediated back to woodlot status as of 2012 after closing in the 1990's.
https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/decommi ... point.html


Close! But not cigar.

Contaminants at the site include uranium and decay products, and fission products. Low levels of ground water contamination, primarily tritium, are non-uniformly distributed at the site because of a dry, silty clay layer that underlies only the south part of the site.

LANSING — Eight nuclear reactors at six sites have been shut down permanently in the Great Lakes region Of them, only one, Big Rock Point in Charlevoix, has been fully decommissioned. All that remains on its 500 acres are eight spent fuel tanks, and the federal government has deemed the land safe for unrestricted use.
https://news.jrn.msu.edu/2022/01/decomm ... perts-say/

In July 2006, the state of Michigan announced it was considering buying the site, which features a mile of Lake Michigan shoreline, for a possible state park. As part of the sale of Consumers' Palisades Nuclear Plant, the new owner Entergy accepted the responsibility for a basketball court size piece of property at Big Rock containing that plant's eight casks of spent fuel.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rock_ ... ower_Plant

So there you have it, they turn it into a state park, sort of like the one around Chernobyl, and leave all the spent fuel behind. Great, just great. Fully decommissioned, All good to go, and the mountain of spent fuel, is that forgotten? Not on your life. That's a terrorists dream come true so I imagine there is a SWAT team there 24/7

LLC plans to continue paying for spent fuel management costs from said operating funds. Therefore, no funds are specifically accumulated for the cost of managing irradiated fuel at Big Rock Point as of 12/31/2016. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1708/ML17089A717.pdf

We made some mistakes in Australia, but we weren't stupid enough to cover our nation with nuclear waste dumps. But it seems no one over there thinks this is a problem? Unbelievable. Well enjoy your lovely new state park, just don't eat any of those two-headed fish you pull out of the lake beside it.
après moi le déluge
theluckycountry
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby theluckycountry » Mon 21 Feb 2022, 17:10:48

I wish people on this forum would be honest and post up the truth, not just cherry picked data, it would save us a lot of trouble and bandwidth.
après moi le déluge
theluckycountry
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests