Why aren't more nuclear power plants using incineration for waste treatment?

  • Thread starter FlyingEng
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Nuclear
In summary: However, for some high-end ILW applications, it may be more appropriate to treat the waste as a whole, rather than break it down into smaller packages.The attitude and political paralysis in terms of storage is the issue.Well I do understand that no radionuclides will be destroyed but the volume reduction is magnificent.As I know the AP 1000 for example is producing a lot of spent resin which will be cemented afterwards. The volume is increasing by 70 percent !If we would burn or pyrolyse this resin we could cut the volume into a couple of percent!The volume reduction is magnificent and I was just wondering why no one is following this treatment. In Japan they have Incineration facilities because
  • #1
FlyingEng
8
0
Folks,

I have found a company in the web which is offering incineration of nuclear waste.

I was wondering why not more NPPs are using incineration as the treatment of burnable waste? It seems to be the standard in Japan and some NPPs in eastern europe and russia. why not in europe or the us??

what are the points? I think its useful as the volume is the smallest and the waste can be stored easily.


looking forward for replys...

FE
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Incineration, of course, doesn't destroy radionuclides. It can be used, however, to treat low-level contaminated waste such as used protective clothing; burning it reduces the volume of the radioactive waste.

But the fact is, the volume of radioactive waste just isn't a real problem.
 
  • #3
minerva said:
Incineration, of course, doesn't destroy radionuclides. It can be used, however, to treat low-level contaminated waste such as used protective clothing; burning it reduces the volume of the radioactive waste.

But the fact is, the volume of radioactive waste just isn't a real problem.

The attitudes and political paralysis in terms of storage is the issue.
 
  • #4
Well I do understand that no radionuclides will be destroyed but the volume reduction is magnificent.
As I know the AP 1000 for example is producing a lot of spent resin which will be cemented afterwards. The volume is increasing by 70 percent !
If we would burn or pyrolyse this resin we could cut the volume into a couple of percent!

The volume reduction is magnificent and I was just wondering why no one is following this treatment. In Japan they have Incineration facilities because it is not allowed to transport flammable liquids from NPP's. So every NPP has it's own Incineration facility.

I assume if we would count storage costs against the Incinerator it would be a great advantage.
 
  • #5
I agree with FlyingEng. The cost of purchasing high integrity waste packages is significant.

For low-end ILW, where activity levels are such that a greater volume of material can be placed in a single package, greater size reduction would provide considerable benefits.
 

What is nuclear waste incineration?

Nuclear waste incineration is a method used to dispose of radioactive waste by burning it at extremely high temperatures. This process reduces the volume of the waste and can also destroy some of the hazardous components.

Is nuclear waste incineration safe?

Nuclear waste incineration is considered to be a safe method of disposal when it is performed correctly. However, there is always a risk of accidents or malfunctions that can release radioactive materials into the environment. It is important for strict safety protocols to be followed during the incineration process.

What are the benefits of nuclear waste incineration?

Nuclear waste incineration can significantly reduce the volume of radioactive waste, making it easier to store and transport. It can also destroy some of the hazardous components, reducing the potential risks of long-term storage.

What are the drawbacks of nuclear waste incineration?

One of the main drawbacks of nuclear waste incineration is the potential for air pollution. The process releases gases and particles into the atmosphere, which can be harmful to human health and the environment if not properly controlled. There are also concerns about the transportation and storage of the resulting ash from the incineration process.

Are there alternative methods for disposing of nuclear waste?

Yes, there are alternative methods for disposing of nuclear waste, such as deep geological disposal and reprocessing. These methods have their own drawbacks and risks, and the most suitable method may vary depending on the type and amount of waste being disposed of.

Similar threads

Why can't we use nuclear waste in nuclear reactors?
    • Nuclear Engineering
2
Replies
43
Views
7K
Why aren't ditto blocks used more often and more transparently?
    • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
13
Views
1K
Why aren't more breeder reactors being built?
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
9
Views
11K
Thoughts on nuclear power and disasters [long, rant/tangenty]
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
6
Views
3K
Nuclear power plants, perfect military targets
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
4
Views
4K
One of the waste products of many nuclear power plants is heat
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
12
Views
5K
Greens use against nuclear power is the waste factor
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
5
Views
3K
Why can’t decay heat be harnessed to safely shutdown a nuclear reactor?
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
14
Views
8K
E=mc2 Pop Science for public waste of time?
    • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
1K
Is the NERVA Program's Decline a Setback for Nuclear Space Propulsion?
    • Nuclear Engineering
Replies
2
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top