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 AdamB » Mon 21 Feb 2022, 18:26:10

theluckycountry wrote: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.


I wish people on this forum wouldn't make a claim about shutting up if their ignorance could be proven, and when proven, they turn out to be character deficient in the truth department.
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7982
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby vtsnowedin » Mon 21 Feb 2022, 19:27:12

I have to wonder what people think the waste being stored in the dry cask containers could be used for if it fell into "the wrong hands'?
If it had any real value the government would have already seized it for their programs.
That it sits there proves it is useless.
User avatar
vtsnowedin
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 14071
Joined: Fri 11 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby theluckycountry » Mon 21 Feb 2022, 22:08:25

vtsnowedin wrote: If it had any real value the government would have already seized it for their programs.
That it sits there proves it is useless.


Still digging I see lol, Yes, what possible use could terrorists make of highly radioactive reactor waste, full of plutonium. Oh you didn't know that? That over a third of the energy generated in most nuclear plants comes from plutonium. That it's created in the reactor as a by-product. And that it's relatively easily separated into weapons grade by chemical processes, much simpler than creating enriched Uranium in billion dollar diffusion plants.

Keep digging vts, the hole you're in could go a little deeper yet, you're head's still poking out.
theluckycountry
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby theluckycountry » Tue 22 Feb 2022, 20:19:42

No further retorts? How about you @AdamB, and wisdom from your keyboard, or do we all accept that simple fact that the nuclear power industry, like most facets of American life, was built on a foundation of false promises and outright lies.
theluckycountry
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Tue 22 Feb 2022, 22:55:55

theluckycountry wrote:No further retorts? How about you @AdamB, and wisdom from your keyboard, or do we all accept that simple fact that the nuclear power industry, like most facets of American life, was built on a foundation of false promises and outright lies.


There was no need. You promised to shut up once your criteria were met. New Zealanders know what honesty is, but obviously there is no such requirement in the Chinese mining colonies. That and I've been dealing with folks who want to pretend that because they have a nice bike and throw expensive brand names parts at it they aren't capable of bolting on themselves bestows talent upon them in some way and you just ooze that crap as well. I remember the first time I roasted a guy on a kitted out RC51 on my ratbike SV650. The posers who need to detail their brand names or monied hardware on their bikes are usually the ones not capable of using either. You can't even admit that the links I included of good ol' USA mountain rides for any motorcycle are pretty decent, because those who can only ride like Granny certainly don't know what to do with a corner any more than a cager does.

So you lied when you said you would shut up once proven wrong. Maybe you can find and rub elbows with some New Zealanders visiting the banana bending shop to get the local experience, and some of their character might rub off on you?
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7982
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 23 Feb 2022, 11:27:16

theluckycountry wrote:Yes, what possible use could terrorists make of highly radioactive reactor waste, full of plutonium. Oh you didn't know that? That over a third of the energy generated in most nuclear plants comes from plutonium. That it's created in the reactor as a by-product. And that it's relatively easily separated into weapons grade by chemical processes, much simpler than creating enriched Uranium in billion dollar diffusion plants.


That is the same not based on reality claim made by the goofy end of the green political groups.

The claim that A) It is easy for any common criminal to grab a 12-20 ton concrete container, cut through the welded seals and extract a few fuel rods without anyone stopping them anywhere along the way. B)Once they grab these few fuel rods which are simultaneously deadly radioactive and easily portable they can sneak them off to a fully operating chemical facility where they will 1)Strip the fuel out of the cladding-2)grind the fuel pellets into fine powder-3)dissolve that powder in a strong acid-4)chemically separate out the reactor grade Plutonium and-5)assemble that reactor grade Plutonium into some form of weapon. Then C) They will deploy said weapon for purposes of blackmail or terrorism.

Meanwhile back here in the real world civilian nuclear reactors have been in use since the early 1950's and there have never been any cases of a non-state group engaging in even the first step of grabbing the spent nuclear fuel let alone all the other steps which are necessary to try and make a device you could actually use or threaten to use to enforce your goals be they blackmail or terrorism.

There are many reasons why non-state actors have not attempted these acts, mostly because with their generally very limited resources and the skill set needed is a matter of some sophisticated education that few terrorists have. Generally terrorists are true believers in something that requires a strong emotional commitment and willingness to kill or seriously harm others.

In those rare cases of highly educated people with such attitudes, they seek employment with governments and achieve well paid positions designing and fine tuning the processes needed to create a weapon of mass destruction from radioactive materials. In such cases at least three of which have happened in real history (South Africa, India, Pakistan) the highly educated persons in question designed methods their governments then used to produce weapons. Also note that in not one of those three real world cases did the government use reactor grade plutonium to build their devices, why would they when long term exposure to neutron flux degrades the Plutonium quality in terms of usefulness for weapon purposes.

Also BTW the UK, France and the USSR each designed power reactors with a capability to produce weapon material yet within a short time all three nations soon decided to build dedicated weapon material production reactors because the power reactors had to be run for short cycles or other problems occurred that made using them to produce weapon grade material extremely inefficient. A typical weapon material production reactor exposes the U-238 for 60 to 90 days before the material has to be completely dissolved and chemically processed to remove the weapon grade plutonium. The longer the material remains in the core the lower its weapon quality becomes and the longest exposed but successful weapon test used plutonium with less than 120 days of exposure to the neutron flux in the core. Reactor grade plutonium is material that has spent 300-900+ days in the core and this stuff is lousy to use for a weapon because the build up of Plutonium-240 has reached 25-40% over that long exposure period. Pu-240 has a nasty high spontaneous fission rate which means it is constantly releasing free neutrons which have the property of ruining the careful math needed to make a nuclear device successfully detonate. Weapon grade material with a 60 day exposure has less than 5% Pu-240 in the mix and material with a 120 day exposure has around a 10% Pu-240 content and is already right at the edge of what explosive technology will compress fast enough to get a successful weapon design.

The fact that the UK, France and the USSR did build duel use reactors in the 1947-1980 period is where the whole tie in between power and weapons comes from and it is a spurious connection at best as all three figured out it was a bad design choice soon after those units went online. Not long after the first one was powered up at Calder Hall in the UK the government decided to build a dedicated weapon material production reactor and switched the dual use reactors they had already built into pure power production. France followed the same pattern soon after that as did the USSR as each learned the lesson that power reactors are bad at producing weapon material.

This is all well established history and only conspiracy theorists dismiss reality for their pet belief system. Reactor grade material is pretty useless as anything but reactor fuel where as you admitted yourself it supplies between 30% and 40% of the energy a power reactor generates between its third year of operation and last core before decommissioning. Bravo for having learned that bit of real world knowledge about Plutonium as most members of the media are willfully ignorant of that fact even though any civilian nuclear plant operator would have explained it if they had bothered to ask.
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: 16740
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby theluckycountry » Thu 24 Feb 2022, 05:33:12

Very interesting. I wonder what all the fuss is then about storage, why they feel it's best to leave the spent fuel behind in what is now to become a state park? Why not just move it to a central repository? Out at an airplane boneyard, or poke it back into a uranium mine. There has to be some logical reason why they would remove everything else from the site yet leave the spent fuel behind. As for it's danger, used as a dirty bomb it could make quite a mess if detonated in the right place, You'd have Fukushima all over again. Imagine Hoover dam full of Radionuclides, Yum.

I think the whole industry has become one big clusterf*ck, a pooch screw of the highest order.
theluckycountry
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 24 Feb 2022, 11:33:45

theluckycountry wrote:Very interesting.


One way of thinking about being schooled on your fundamental ignorance I suppose.
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7982
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 24 Feb 2022, 15:12:17

theluckycountry wrote:Very interesting. I wonder what all the fuss is then about storage, why they feel it's best to leave the spent fuel behind in what is now to become a state park? Why not just move it to a central repository? Out at an airplane boneyard, or poke it back into a uranium mine. There has to be some logical reason why they would remove everything else from the site yet leave the spent fuel behind. As for it's danger, used as a dirty bomb it could make quite a mess if detonated in the right place, You'd have Fukushima all over again. Imagine Hoover dam full of Radionuclides, Yum.


It is not logic, it is politics pure and simple.

As for Fukushima, big whoop a company lost a lot of money and clean up will take a while but in real world terms the hype about contamination turned out to be almost all hype with a tiny splash of reality thrown in for flavor. The simple fact is for 99% of the evacuation zone around Fukushima the background levels never even reached those experienced by airline pilots on a routine basis. Evacuation and then maintaining the withdrawal at first was justified as the situation was unclear, but once specialists went through and measured levels maintaining evacuation became a political decision, not one based on science.
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: 16740
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby Subjectivist » Thu 24 Feb 2022, 16:36:40

theluckycountry wrote:Very interesting. I wonder what all the fuss is then about storage, why they feel it's best to leave the spent fuel behind in what is now to become a state park? Why not just move it to a central repository? Out at an airplane boneyard, or poke it back into a uranium mine. There has to be some logical reason why they would remove everything else from the site yet leave the spent fuel behind. As for it's danger, used as a dirty bomb it could make quite a mess if detonated in the right place, You'd have Fukushima all over again. Imagine Hoover dam full of Radionuclides, Yum.

I think the whole industry has become one big clusterf*ck, a pooch screw of the highest order.


Back in 1976 the USA had two companies building very large waste reprocessing plants, one in Illinois and a second in South Carolina. Jimmy Carter as a campaign tactic gave several speeches about the danger of a civilian plutonium economy leading to nuclear proliferation despite the fact that the UK and France were already reprocessing on a small scale and planning to expand capacity. In response President Ford ordered the NRC to freeze the liscencing process for the two big reprocessing plants while the issue was reviewed. Carter won the election and issued an executive order making the civilian reprocessing of nuclear fuel illegal. When the nuclear power companies asked the government what they should do with their spent fuel Congress passed a law saying that federal government would take possession of all spent civilian fuel within fifteen years so until then store it in their spent fuel pools. When the clock ran out Congress called for two national repositories in norther Michigan and Nevada. Michigan had two senior senators and within a short time the Michigan repository was cancelled leaving just Nevada. Lots of political foot dragging testing researching took place over the next decade until the senior Senator from Nevada became the head of the senate and in 2010 managed to get the Nevada repository cancelled as well. Since the mid 1990's the federal government has repeatedly failed to accept delivery of the accumulating spent nuclear fuel so it stays at the powerplant sites even when those sites are remediated awaiting federal pick up and disposition.

In other words, this is a political problem, not a technology problem.
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: 4681
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby theluckycountry » Thu 24 Feb 2022, 18:06:02

Politics, Amazing. It's not like the stuff would take up much room, all the spent fuel could be piled on a football field I read once, that's the beauty of Nuclear, very efficient.
theluckycountry
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue 20 Jul 2021, 18:08:48
Location: Australia

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby Doly » Fri 25 Feb 2022, 13:59:34

In other words, this is a political problem, not a technology problem.


I'd describe it more as a risk management problem. The big issue with nuclear in almost all countries is that the risks of nuclear have fat tails, and most countries just can't handle risks with fat tails well at all.

It could also be why peak oil is a difficult issue. Fat tails again.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Fri 25 Feb 2022, 18:05:04

Doly wrote:It could also be why peak oil is a difficult issue. Fat tails again.


Arguably, peak oil risk is more easily mitigated than fat tail risk on nuclear power. Peak oil operates in a system where future risk mitigation is built in naturally.
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7982
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 26 Jul 2022, 17:09:31

Very useful explanation for those who believe in science, lots of pictures to demonstrate what each statement is referring to which make quoting rather pointless. Click on the link and learn for yourself.

What about the waste?
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: 16740
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby Doly » Wed 27 Jul 2022, 14:35:13

Peak oil operates in a system where future risk mitigation is built in naturally.


I don't follow you. Can you elaborate?
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4333
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00

Re: THE Nuclear Waste Thread (merged)

Unread postby AdamB » Thu 28 Jul 2022, 00:40:59

Doly wrote:
Peak oil operates in a system where future risk mitigation is built in naturally.


I don't follow you. Can you elaborate?


Sure. Let us say we use scarcity as a driver, classic peak oil. In the old days, like oil production to date, decreasing storage and market signals proclaim scarcity and first drives up price. Continue this trend, more scarcity, higher prices, and the demand/price balance shifts. In the old days, this would be the always true to date axiom of "the cure for high oil prices is high oil prices". But in a true scarcity scenario, no increase in supply can happen. Maybe you can hold production, maybe you can fight the decline with those high prices, but scarcity is scarcity, there will be no more. Consistently high prices can then be counted on to continue, demand will be forced in this case to be lower, the combination of the two will allow nothing to mitigate price except....demand destruction. High prices in the old days would lead to more supply, not in this case, so the only alternative is forced demand destruction. Maybe rationing, society will be stretched in some places to the breaking point under high prices, and oil being primarily related to transport, transport habits will be forced to shift. The new price will then be established under two conditions, the overall natural decline of existing fields and wells and new ones that can fight decline (and will, under our high price scenario), and the speed at which adaption and overal demand destruction takes place.

It is quite conceivable that once this price/supply disruption establishes itself, and folks and governments are all initiating their long term mitigation efforts, they might balance against decline, or even outstrip it, and the normal supply demand relationship will be reestablished, just in a overall declining market.

I've already replaced 90% of my transport fuel use with 2 used EVs. EVs aren't required for everyone of course. CNG is popular locally, fuel cells, hydrogen, whatever. I am already irritated when I fill up an ICE antique, but when I need cross continent range, I currently have no other choice. In this hypothetical oil decline scenario, I imagine that price will drive me to fly instead of drive, a train or a bus perhaps. But locally, I'd still being EVing all around. Costs in general would go up, no different than how inflation works, as the new high price of crude flows through the economy. It will be disruptive, no doubt about that, but we need look no farther than a similar situation that happened with gloal peak oil in 1979. Stagflation, people changed their driving habits, prices were high and efficiencies took place on a grand scale, it took years to sort out as oil production dropped and then finally at least stabilized. Later, it began to increase again as the cure to high prices kicked in, because as we all know, 1979 was just one of the peak oils, not THE peak.

And with any understanding of global reserves and resources, there is no scarcity requirement this half of the century, which I believe I've mentioned before. The conditions of 1979, and solution to it, are still viable with existing reserves and resources. It is only a matter of price and our faux-concern about the environment, we talk about no more O&G investment and whatnot, but we are just lying to ourselves right now. Few are taking steps that a real peak oil would require, in the name of being green.

Just because we CAN do a thing, doesn't necessarily mean we will. We've shown no interest to date in chosing to decrease out overall crude use.
What does a science denier look like?

Armageddon » Thu 09 Feb 2006, 10:47:28
whales are a perfect example as to why evolution is wrong. Nothing can evolve into something that enormous. There is no explanation for it getting that big. end of discussion
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 7982
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Previous

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests