- #1
Tom McCurdy
- 1,020
- 1
What do you think?
Leong said:That's the problem with people. know how to use; don't know how to get rid.
Dayle Record said:Here is the lead into that story regarding fast groundwater under Yucca Mountain.
In September, 1997, scientists from the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos National Laboratories reported that plutonium from an underground nuclear weapons test at Pahute Mesa on the Nevada Test Site had migrated almost a mile from the where the test took place. This finding contradicts DOE predictions about how fast plutonium can move through the underground rock. Until now, DOE and its scientists had contended that plutonium movement would be very slow - several inches or feet over hundreds of years. The discovery that plutonium has moved almost a mile in less than 30 years has major implications for DOE's plans to isolate spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, since such wastes contain nearly 1,000 tons of plutonium that remains extremely dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
Then why store it inside a mountain?Morbius said:Additionally, the waste at Yucca mountain does NOT rely on the soil to contain the waste - the waste is encapsulated in a matrix of borosilicate glass protected by a steel container.
hitssquad said:Then why store it inside a mountain?
$10,000 per pound.brewnog said:how much it costs to take a certain amount of "stuff" into space?
American commercial nuclear power plants produce about 2,000 tons of waste each year. There are 103 reactors in the United States, and ~430 worldwide, so worldwide nuclear waste production is perhaps around 8,000-9,000 tons per year.number of tonnes of nuclear waste that is produced globally each year?
This is explained in detail in Garwin's http://print.google.com/print?id=1YgBR6shTckC&lpg=8&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dmegawatts%2Band%2Bmegatons&pg=0_1&sig=wK_6CIs-Xm-Mit2wkbS1T-ZQqxI [Broken]. It is also explained in detail in MIT's recent comprehensive fuel-cycle strategies analysis. The short answer is that waste reprocessing does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposal, is not necessarily a clean process (significant volumes of waste may be produced in the process of trying to reduce waste), is not necessarily economical, does not necessarily reduce proliferation potential, does not necessarily reduce threats to public safety in the form of environmental contamination, does not necessarily expand potential fuel reserves, and does not necessarily provide better spent fuel disposition options.we (in the UK) reprocess a shedload of our waste, why aren't you folks over the pond doing this on your back doorstep?
brewnog said:And Morbius (or anyone else), would you care to estimate the number of tonnes of nuclear waste that is produced globally each year?
I think the above two features *might just* rule out the ethically sound issue of "let's deal with this problem by just shooting it into space", before the safety issue has even been considered. Besides, we (in the UK) reprocess a shedload of our waste, why aren't you folks over the pond doing this on your back doorstep?
<edit> Heh, just seen the other thread about recycling... </edit>
hitssquad said:This is explained in detail in Garwin's http://print.google.com/print?id=1YgBR6shTckC&lpg=8&prev=http://print.google.com/print%3Fq%3Dmegawatts%2Band%2Bmegatons&pg=0_1&sig=wK_6CIs-Xm-Mit2wkbS1T-ZQqxI [Broken]. It is also explained in detail in MIT's recent comprehensive fuel-cycle strategies analysis. The short answer is that waste reprocessing does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposal...
...And doing that does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposal:Morbius said:the true nuclear waste is only about 5% of the total mass of discharged fuel. If one separates the fission products from the spent fuel - one SURELY reduces the mass and volume of waste.hitssquad said:waste reprocessing does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposal
Yes. Virtually all of the heat power produced by spent fuel is the responsibility of the ~5% "real waste" which, so it might be buried by itself, reprocessing promises to isolate. According to Richard Garwin, since this reduced-volume waste produces heat at virually the same rate as the original waste, the repository volume needed to contain it is virtually the same.About 95% of the nuclear waste is U-238 which has NOT been transmuted to Plutonium. Therefore, it is only slightly radioactive
hitssquad said:...And doing that does not necessarily reduce the needed volume capacity of final disposal:
(Richard Garwin. Megawatts and Megatons. p144. {To read the book online, click on "Search inside this book"})
- ...the amount of space needed in the repository is determined primarily by the heat produced by the fission products and the need not to overheat the rock.
hitssquad said:OK, then now reprocessing has another point in its favor.
Morbius said:You can read about the research into how heat affects the repository,
and how it is modeled at:
http://www.llnl.gov/str/Glassley.html
It's not quite that bad - that's the rate for space shuttle flights (including re-entry), not all flights. Besides, you can make a canister that can survive re-entry (we already do).Caim said:My opinion is that we could send it on space shuttles to the sun. I know it may sound farfetched but right now it is 100% possible. The only problem is that US space missions fail like 1/100 flights. One single failure will spread nuclear waste all over the US.
Morbius provided the raw numbers, I'll provide the http://www.npca.org/across_the_nation/visitor_experience/code_red/conclusions.asp [Broken].Brewdog said:And Morbius (or anyone else), would you care to estimate the number of tonnes of nuclear waste that is produced globally each year?
Morbius's 3,000 tons per year, which could be significantly lower if the "environmentalists" didn't stand in the way, is absolutely trivial compared to the billions of tons of pollution from fossil fuels that gets into the environment every year. And remember, none of that 3,000 tons of nuclear waste gets into the environment.Pollution streaming from more than 200 million vehicles and 26 different categories of industry, from power plants to smelters to refineries, amounts to more than 160 million tons yearly, not counting carbon dioxide pollution. Carbon dioxide pollution from power plants alone amounts to more than 2 billion tons annually.
hitssquad said:
- The team hopes to use a power wall, which is an array of monitors pieced together into one giant monitor, to project the true wealth of detail generated by the code.
I have been reading about these power walls recently. There is a biology team that calls their's the http://ncmir.ucsd.edu/Research/Highlights/2004_BioWall.htm [Broken].
russ_watters said:Morbius's 3,000 tons per year, which could be significantly lower if the "environmentalists" didn't stand in the way, is absolutely trivial compared to the billions of tons of pollution from fossil fuels that gets into the environment every year. And remember, none of that 3,000 tons of nuclear waste gets into the environment.
What purpose might that serve?Political Prodigy said:use the jettison it into space idea.
Yucca Mountain is a ridge located in Nevada that has been proposed as a potential storage site for the United States' high-level nuclear waste. This waste is currently being stored at various sites across the country, but the government is looking for a long-term solution. Yucca Mountain was chosen due to its remote location and geological stability.
The safety of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is a highly debated topic. Proponents argue that the site has been thoroughly studied and deemed suitable for storage, with multiple layers of protection in place to prevent any leakage or environmental impact. However, opponents point to concerns about the potential for earthquakes and groundwater contamination. Ultimately, the safety of the site is still being evaluated and debated.
The potential risks of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain include the possibility of earthquakes or volcanic activity disrupting the storage site, which could lead to the release of radioactive materials into the environment. There are also concerns about the transportation of the waste to the site, as accidents or spills could have serious consequences. Additionally, there are concerns about the long-term stability of the storage containers and the potential for leakage over time.
One alternative to storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain is to continue storing it at various sites across the country, though this is seen as a temporary solution. Another option is to reprocess the waste to reduce its volume and make it easier to store. However, this process is controversial and expensive. Some also suggest the possibility of storing the waste in deep underground repositories, though this would also face opposition and challenges.
The decision to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain ultimately falls to the U.S. government, specifically the Department of Energy. However, there are many stakeholders involved in the decision-making process, including state and local governments, Native American tribes, and environmental groups. Ultimately, any decision to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain would likely face legal challenges and public opposition.