Is Rocketing Nuclear Waste into the Sun a Viable Solution?

[Phy6explorer]

Use them up!

Low level waste I think will not cause much damagebut they will surely at some point at the rate that they are accumulating.But the best way to get rid of the m is to find uses for them too. Around 20 percent of the nuclear wastes have been found to have uses already. Until then store each type of waste separately, safely!

 

[vanesch]

Low level waste I think will not cause much damagebut they will surely at some point at the rate that they are accumulating.

Low-level nuclear waste becomes pretty harmless after 30-50 years (that's about the definition of low-level waste). It is, after that time, about as radioactive as natural granite. So there isn't an endless accumulation of that kind of waste.

 

[boomerang]

Rather the piling up the waste and storing it, would it be a lot easier to pulverise it into
a very very fine dust and them simply dispurse it into the atmosphere?

 

[canadmonster]

Rather the piling up the waste and storing it, would it be a lot easier to pulverise it into
a very very fine dust and them simply dispurse it into the atmosphere?

are you suggesting to dump nuclear waste into the atmosphere? Not a good idea. Radio active waste can now be used to make power.

 

[vanesch]

Rather the piling up the waste and storing it, would it be a lot easier to pulverise it into
a very very fine dust and them simply dispurse it into the atmosphere?

You are a joker, right ?

It is the one thing you want to avoid: get it dispersed in the atmosphere so that people breathe it. The problem with radioactive waste is internal contamination: that you take too much of the stuff in your body and that this will give you a significant dose for a long period (the time it stays in your body).

However, although this will probably make the hair rise of any "reasonable" person, what is not a bad idea, is to dump it in the ocean, spread out. Horrible as this may sound, even if you'd spread out all of the high level waste accumulated all over the world for the last 40 years, that would only increase the radioactivity of a liter of seawater with less than 1 Bq (the natural radioactivity of a liter of seawater is about 16 Bq).

And what is even a better idea is to keep it in a safe repository...

 

[vanesch]

are you suggesting to dump nuclear waste into the atmosphere? Not a good idea. Radio active waste can now be used to make power.

The "waste" of the once-through cycle does contain indeed still a lot of potential nuclear energy, in fact about 100 times more (if we include the "waste" from the enrichment) energy than we already extracted from it. But to use that, we need breeder reactors, which are technically possible, but have political difficulties.

However, if you mean, the heat waste of fission products, I don't know if it is worth extracting that. The risk of the installation would probably not outweight the benefit of the little bit of energy that you would get from it. You could make warm water for the city or something. But then why not use the same process with thermal solar ?

 

[canadmonster]

The "waste" of the once-through cycle does contain indeed still a lot of potential nuclear energy, in fact about 100 times more (if we include the "waste" from the enrichment) energy than we already extracted from it. But to use that, we need breeder reactors, which are technically possible, but have political difficulties.

However, if you mean, the heat waste of fission products, I don't know if it is worth extracting that. The risk of the installation would probably not outweight the benefit of the little bit of energy that you would get from it. You could make warm water for the city or something. But then why not use the same process with thermal solar ?

Not a heat transfer but a different power plant. The late Paul m Brown has a patent on it

 

[russ_watters]

A quick google shows he invented some sort of RTG. These things are used only in spacecraft and only with very radioactive sources for a reason: they are not cheap, efficient, or dense enough to be viable for mass generation.

 

[Phy6explorer]

But now?

What actually is done with the radioactive waste now?

 

[vanesch]

What actually is done with the radioactive waste now?

It goes in McDonalds hamburgers

It depends on the kind of waste. LLW is stored in special dumps, which have been secured against ground water infiltration and so on, and then covered with ground when they are filled. They need to contain the waste for about 30 years, after which its radioactivity drops to background levels.

High level waste (spend fuel from reactors) is reprocessed or not. The final waste which is HLW (high level waste) is stored in special canisters, which are stored in ventilated concrete storage buildings for a few decades, to let them cool. They are projected to be put in deep geological repositories (a bit the opposite of deep mines). But this is not done yet for three reasons. First of all, the repository must be studied thoroughly, in order to be sure that it is going to contain the waste for a long time (several thousand years). Most of this research has already been done, with positive results, but one still insists on more research.
The second reason is that the longer we can wait to store the waste, the less power it will dissipate, and hence the denser can be the packing in the repository, which increases the usefulness. As the absolute volumes of HLW are, on an industrial scale, pretty small, one can keep them for a long time in temporary storage buildings. The longer one can wait, the better use we can make of the repository.
The third reason is the most silly one: anti-nuclear activists are against it, because it would destroy one of their main arguments against nuclear power, namely that one doesn't know what to do with the waste.

 

[Phy6explorer]

The third reason is the most silly one: anti-nuclear activists are against it, because it would destroy one of their main arguments against nuclear power, namely that one doesn't know what to do with the waste.

It is not silly,is it? I mean, I know that the activists aren't really worried or anything,but they aren't wrong, are they? I know it's too late, as a humoungous amount of works are done with nuclear energy, but if the wastes go on accumulating without any way of disposing them, the HLW I mean, then...what'll happen to planet Earth.Do you think a day will come when we will find a use for the wastes or a way to dispose of them.But even if a use comes, it has to be a major one because the wastes will go on accumulating side-by-side.Disposal is the only chance I suppose!

 

[vanesch]

It is not silly,is it? I mean, I know that the activists aren't really worried or anything,but they aren't wrong, are they? I know it's too late, as a humoungous amount of works are done with nuclear energy, but if the wastes go on accumulating without any way of disposing them, the HLW I mean, then...what'll happen to planet Earth.

They are wrong, because we do know what to do with it, and that is: deep geological storage. This is not some futuristic fiction, there are several places in the world that have been studied (practically, that is), with experimental drills, and small scale repositories. The physics, geology and chemistry of these repositories has been studied, and one is ready to put it in. Only, for that, one needs a political agreement, which can't be obtained, simply because of people refusing the idea that a solution might exist.

And, as I said, there's no hurry, because the longer we can let the waste cool at the surface, the closer we can pack it downstairs.

There is of course the infamous Yucca Mountain, but there is the Gorleben salt structure in Germany, there is the clay layers in Geel (Belgium), there is the Scandinavian granite formation, ... many places have been studied and found OK.
More than 20 years of research went in some of them, to show that it is a safe repository.

Do you think a day will come when we will find a use for the wastes or a way to dispose of them.

We already know what to do with it, as I said.

But you also have to know that the *quantities* are very small. Worldwide, about 200,000 tons of spend fuel are accumulated, over the last half century. That is about 200 Olympic swimming pools. Worldwide. Of half a century.
That's about the amount of coal that ONE 1 GW coal-fired power plant uses IN ONE MONTH.

Of course, the HLW is much more dangerous, but it gives you an idea of the relative volumes of things, and also why there is no issue in just keeping the HLW for a few more decades in storage buildings. On an industrial scale, the quantity of HLW is very tiny.

 

[_Mayday_]

It costs about >$1000/kg (maybe closer to 10 times that) to lauch material from Earth to space, and that is just to orbit. That's more than the cost the energy extracted from the fuel. It's better to bury it on earth.

Is it that the costs are just not economically viable, or is there some degree of economies of scale? I mean 1Kg may cost a lot, but when dealing with larger portions, would that lower the price per Kg?

 

[russ_watters]

Is it that the costs are just not economically viable, or is there some degree of economies of scale? I mean 1Kg may cost a lot, but when dealing with larger portions, would that lower the price per Kg?

Not much, no. The propulsion technology required to drop the cost by, say, an order of magnitude, doesn't exist.

 

[mheslep]

Lovins on Nuke power

Amory Lovins, a former experimental physicist, has been a pundent for 20 years on how to get off oil in the US. His plan is big on renewable energy, ultra-light cars, and is highly critical of nuclear power as a way to get there.

Lovins argument against nuclear doesn't start with waste. My summary of his points:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
o The free market has spoken on nuclear: NO.
- No where in the world is private capital supporting the construction of a nuclear plant. It is all government supported.
-In the '90s global nuke capacity rose 1% compared to 17% solar PV, 24% wind.
-Renewables and demand side savings will continue to get cheaper w/ better tech, nuclear not so much.

o Nuclear proliferation risk. Commercial nuke power provides a convenient camouflage for making bombs ala India and Pakistan. Much of the same expertise for making a bomb (at least the fuel cycle) is required for power so nuke power spreads the expertise and material. In sum, if there was no nuke power industry there'd be no Iran or N. Korea problem.

Moreover, nuclear power’s having died of an incurable attack of market forces—plus the end of the Cold War—offers a unique opportunity to make nuclear materials, skills, and equipment no longer ordinary items of commerce (except for minor, special, and readily safeguarded medical and industrial uses). This would make such bomb-kit ingredients harder to get, more conspicuous to try to get, and politically far costlier to be caught trying to get or supply, because for the first time, the reason for wanting them would be unambiguously military. This exposure of illicit transactions—now hidden in and rationalized by a vast flow of supposedly innocent civilian nuclear commerce—would not make nuclear bomb proliferation impossible, but would make it far more difficult, and would focus its resource flows into narrower, more readily monitored channels.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E00-19_ProfitNukeFree.pdf"
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E01-19_NuclearOption.pdf"
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E01-15_NuclearEnergyDebate.pdf"

A little while ago I would have disagreed, but now it appears Wind/Solar/Biofuels are becoming increasingly competitive. I was surprised to see no private nuclear underway even outside the US, in say France? Even IF we could rid ourselves of the irrationality around nuclear, how much would it cost? And I generally agreed w/ the proliferation problem: I don't see anyway to safely separate nuclear weapons tech from nuclear power.

 

[amz8601]

Ha...great idea to blast it off to the sun...i think they tried that but it didnt work...last i heard was the country that tried it doesn't exist anymore...(sorry...bad joke) lol

on a more serious note...did i study on it not too long ago... some methods have been to dig graves for them and busy them in the ground...

also i heard they would seal them in containers and drop them in the ocean...

i can't remember how successful each method was and i can't even remember the rest of the methods...oh well...so much for my contribution...should have just left it at that bad joke...

;)

 

[russ_watters]

Lovins argument against nuclear doesn't start with waste. My summary of his points:
o The free market has spoken on nuclear: NO.
- No where in the world is private capital supporting the construction of a nuclear plant. It is all government supported.

Do any power plants get zero government support?? I doubt it. Subsidized or not, it is possible to calculate the true cost of the energy. Has he?

-In the '90s global nuke capacity rose 1% compared to 17% solar PV, 24% wind.

Yes, and? Nuclear power has been running against a parachute because of irrational paranoia. But that is changing. Mostly because of...economics. Btw, those growth rates are insignificant compared to the growth in coal and gas turbine generation.

-Renewables and demand side savings will continue to get cheaper w/ better tech, nuclear not so much.

Not true. unfortunately, the hippies have caused the US to lose two full generations of nuclear power advancements, but there is new technology out there just waiting to be implimented. The same is not true with pv and wind. Sure, we can expect some reduction in cost for pv and wind - but how much? It needs a lot to become competitive.

o Nuclear proliferation risk. Commercial nuke power provides a convenient camouflage for making bombs ala India and Pakistan.

Irrelevant. The US already has nuclear weapons. We don't need to camoflage our nuclear activities.

Much of the same expertise for making a bomb (at least the fuel cycle) is required for power so nuke power spreads the expertise and material. In sum, if there was no nuke power industry there'd be no Iran or N. Korea problem.

If the Chinese hadn't invented gunpowder, there'd be no guns. You can't suppress science, so you shouldn't try. Instead, you should try to harness it for good.

These are the same old lies and repeating them over and over doesn't make them true.

A little while ago I would have disagreed, but now it appears Wind/Solar/Biofuels are becoming increasingly competitive.

And they can get a whole lot more "increasingly competitive" without even approaching actually being competitive.

I was surprised to see no private nuclear underway even outside the US, in say France?

France is already just about 100% nuclear and their demand isn't growing very fast. No need to build more plants.

Even IF we could rid ourselves of the irrationality around nuclear, how much would it cost?

Here are some numbers: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/398986/putting_a_price_on_nuclear_power/index.html?source=r_science
Of particular note is this sentence:

...the Shearon Harris plant came in at nearly $3 billion over budget, in part because of delays that put it a decade behind schedule.

Point being: the cost overruns are artificial. It should come as no surprise that it doesn't actually take 20 years to build a nuclear power plant, it only takes 5. The rest of the time is spent wading through red tape and hippie legal challenges. There is no magic, no technology to be invented, no reason for nuclear to be as expensive as it is (and it is still competitive, even with a weight around its ankle). The cost of nuclear power can easily be cut in half simply by deciding to do it.

And I generally agreed w/ the proliferation problem: I don't see anyway to safely separate nuclear weapons tech from nuclear power.

Could you explain why we need to?

 

[russ_watters]

I've started to peruse those links, mheslep - you didn't quote quite all the usual lies and irrelevancies, but they are all in there. The first link also discusses the waste [non]issue and efficiency improvements that can't fix the capacity problem.

Economic analyses can be slippery and while this guy finds every "hidden cost" for nuclear power he can, all forms of power have "hidden costs" and the others often get overlooked (air pollution, for example, kills about 20,000 Americans per year. That cost is never included in any estimate. Our involvement in the Persian Gulf is only included when convenient). Have a look at this: http://www.geogenix.com/news/ledger_082205.htm

The array cost $50k and the great state of New Jersey kicked-in $30k of it. Wow. A 60% subsidy. Paid for by the taxpayers of New Jersey (they have lots of other subsidies, including energy efficiency ones). The article contains some logical/scientific errors, as they usually do, but the most important fact is this:

The array has a capacity of 8kW

Some quick math:
Assume the array will generate 32 kWh per day (4 hours a day or 8 hours every other day on average). That's a tough one to estimate, but I figure the array doesn't have dual axis tracking (very few do).

32 kWh per day at $.13/kWh is $1518 per year, or a payback on the $20k of 13 years -- overall, a payback of 40 years. These numbers, of course, assume no maintenance and no degredation of the array.

Now, the article claims a 5-7 year payback. At 8kW peak and $.13/kWh, 5 years must assume 3,846 hrs per year at 8kW. Since there are only 4,380 daylight hours per year, the sun angle cuts the light by half, and the sky is cloudy half the time, you can only hope for an effective 1,100 hours. I wonder who lied to this poor, naive woman?

Incidentally, you always read about these things as they are being installed - ever read an article written a year after they were installed?

 

[vanesch]

Amory Lovins, a former experimental physicist, has been a pundent for 20 years on how to get off oil in the US. His plan is big on renewable energy, ultra-light cars, and is highly critical of nuclear power as a way to get there.

Lovins is one of the founders of the anti-nuclear movement.

EDIT: BTW, the 20 years he used to ponder, got France totally nuclear concerning electricity and the most fuel efficient cars in the world. (I'm not saying that to make publicity for France, I'm saying that while anti-nuclear activists ponder, other people do).

 

[mheslep]

Lovins is one of the founders of the anti-nuclear movement.

EDIT: BTW, the 20 years he used to ponder, got France totally nuclear concerning electricity and the most fuel efficient cars in the world. (I'm not saying that to make publicity for France, I'm saying that while anti-nuclear activists ponder, other people do).

Didn't know he was a founder; it certainly fits. Its clear he's got an agenda w/ which I don't necessary agree, but he's informed so I find it productive to engage his ideas. Lovins is not just a sign carrier. He's done some detailed work on an H based cars and ultra light vehicles, employs several former GM engineers, and has even spun a carbon fiber fabrication facility to demonstrate his ideas.

BTW, upon what could you possibly be basing that 'most fuel efficient' cars claim?

 

[vanesch]

BTW, upon what could you possibly be basing that 'most fuel efficient' cars claim?

Hmm, that doesn't seem to be right
I had read it in different magazines over here, but apparently the Japanese are better.
Here's a random classification cite (for what it's worth):
http://www.clean-auto.com/spip.php?article3882

 

[vanesch]

Its clear he's got an agenda w/ which I don't necessary agree, but he's informed so I find it productive to engage his ideas. Lovins is not just a sign carrier. He's done some detailed work on an H based cars and ultra light vehicles, employs several former GM engineers, and has even spun a carbon fiber fabrication facility to demonstrate his ideas.

I know, and actually, I find it a pity that he combines his "renewables" research with an anti-nuclear stance. It seems to be that people like him have instilled the erroneous idea that if you are pro-nuclear, you are against renewables, and vice versa, instead of seeing them as two different ways of tackling the same problem which is fossil fuel consumption. The anti-nuclear position seems to be an extra boundary condition which they impose themselves, and *within that framework*, try to do the best they can. But why this boundary condition ?

Nobody is seriously believing that in the 2 or 3 coming decades, renewables are going to *solve* the issue *entirely* ; in fact, things like Lovins' work are more kind of research than anything else. Why, when doing this research, also telling a lot of crap concerning nuclear ?

Nuclear can solve the problem up to any desired level: entirely (but then we have to start building power plants at full capacity right now), or up to a certain fraction. There's room enough for renewables to show they can do something useful too. Beyond the 15-20% level, it has NEVER been shown. Maybe one day it will. Maybe not. The more *actually working* renewables we can get, the better. But there will not be any "competition for the last coal fired power plant to replace" between renewables and nuclear in the foreseeable future! There's more than enough for everybody. So why do these "renewable" guys insist on getting rid of nuclear, even before they've replaced half of the coal fired plants ?

 

[mheslep]

...Here are some numbers: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/398986/putting_a_price_on_nuclear_power/index.html?source=r_science
Of particular note is this sentence:
...the Shearon Harris plant came in at nearly $3 billion over budget, in part because of delays that put it a decade behind schedule.
Point being: the cost overruns are artificial. It should come as no surprise that it doesn't actually take 20 years to build a nuclear power plant, it only takes 5.

That piece just says Harris was late because of 'delays' and therefore over budget; it does not say the delays were caused be hippie legal challenges though it may well be that they were. Are you just assuming the delay cause or do you have other information?

 

[mheslep]

...Nobody is seriously believing that in the 2 or 3 coming decades, renewables are going to *solve* the issue *entirely* ;

Lovins proposes:
1. the US can get completely off oil in a couple of decades
2. it can do this without adding any nuclear.
3. Natural gas and CCGT stays in the mix. For the Warmers he throws in reforming the CH4 at the well head and reinserting the CO2 on the spot.

I have, let's say, an 'affinity' for his first point as my major issue w/ energy at the moment is vulnerable oil imports from bad actors and the hit the US economy takes as a result.

 

[mheslep]

Here are some numbers: http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/398986/putting_a_price_on_nuclear_power/index.html?source=r_science
Of particular note is this sentence: Point being: the cost overruns are artificial. It should come as no surprise that it doesn't actually take 20 years to build a nuclear power plant, it only takes 5. The rest of the time is spent wading through red tape and hippie legal challenges.

That RedOrbit piece on Progress Energy was from 2006. Now we have
Price triples for Progress Energy's proposed nuclear plant in Levy
Match 11, 2008
Thats Levy, Florida.

Progress Energy tripled its estimate for its new nuclear power plant in Levy County, saying Monday that the new price is $17-billion.

What the hell?

 

[mheslep]

On Proliferation:

The US already has nuclear weapons. We don't need to camoflage our nuclear activities. If the Chinese hadn't invented gunpowder, there'd be no guns. You can't suppress science, so you shouldn't try. Instead, you should try to harness it for good.
?

And I generally agreed w/ the proliferation problem: I don't see anyway to safely separate nuclear weapons tech from nuclear power.

Could you explain why we need to?

The President has stated nuclear weapons in rogue hands are a (the?) major threat to the US. My earlier point was commercial nuclear power allows other countries to camouflage weapons programs. I mentioned Pakistan. If one could go back 20 years and stop worldwide any new nuclear power, you stop A. Q. Khan and without him you stop, or help to stop, N. Korea, Libya, and Iranian nuclear programs to which he was an important contributor. -Not that I would have stopped it w/out replacing with something else.
Anyone can put together a U235 bomb. The trick is getting the U235 which takes a country sized apparatus to produce. AFAICT, most of the technology for power grade enrichment and weapons grade is identical. That is why I say I see no good way to separate the two - power and bomb.

 

[Azael]

On Proliferation:


The President has stated nuclear weapons in rogue hands are a (the?) major threat to the US. My earlier point was commercial nuclear power allows other countries to camouflage weapons programs. I mentioned Pakistan. If one could go back 20 years and stop worldwide any new nuclear power, you stop A. Q. Khan and without him you stop, or help to stop, N. Korea, Libya, and Iranian nuclear programs to which he was an important contributor. -Not that I would have stopped it w/out replacing with something else.
Anyone can put together a U235 bomb. The trick is getting the U235 which takes a country sized apparatus to produce. AFAICT, most of the technology for power grade enrichment and weapons grade is identical. That is why I say I see no good way to separate the two - power and bomb.

But every country with nuclear power doesn't need enrichment plants, there is nothing preventing countries from buying enrichened uranium from other countries. Sweden get 50% of our electricity from nuclear and we don't have a enrichment plant. The whole problem could be solved if the NPT is modified so that only a select few have the right to build enrichment and reprocessing plants or perhaps so that all enrichment plants has to be co owned by several nations so that no one nation can use it for its own purposes alone.

Preventing spread of nuclear weapons by targeting nuclear power plants seems as logical to me as trying to prevent napalm bombs by shutting down gas stations.

 

[mheslep]

But every country with nuclear power doesn't need enrichment plants, there is nothing preventing countries from buying enrichened uranium from other countries. Sweden get 50% of our electricity from nuclear and we don't have a enrichment plant. The whole problem could be solved if the NPT is modified so that only a select few have the right to build enrichment and reprocessing plants or perhaps so that all enrichment plants has to be co owned by several nations so that no one nation can use it for its own purposes alone.

Certainly a country can import its enriched material; Russia tried to have the Iranians abandon their program and import from Russia instead. Iran refused. Iran continues with its enrichment program and it still grabs a great deal of political cover by telling the world that its program is for power, and more importantly it can tell its own population the same thing. I read that the average Iranian takes some pride their country's 'peaceful' nuclear program. Also, Iran has violated the NPT a couple times; they are in violation now, so one can hardly argue the NPT stops these states.

Preventing spread of nuclear weapons by targeting nuclear power plants seems as logical to me as trying to prevent napalm bombs by shutting down gas stations.

That analogy is fairly wide of the target, gas stations and napalm are both down stream from widely distributed sources - the wells. Enrichment requires big technology and big money so its a choke point for nuclear - power or bomb.

 

[Andrew Mason]

One positive thing about Lovins' report is that he does recognize that nuclear displaces a significant amount of greenhouse gas emissions - Helen Caldicott could learn something there. The anti-nuclear movement seems to be buying the notion that the emissions from the construction of the nuclear plant plus the mining and manufacturing of fuel negate the emissions saved by displacing fossil fuel plants. It is an absurd argument, but it is often used.

And I generally agreed w/ the proliferation problem: I don't see anyway to safely separate nuclear weapons tech from nuclear power.

The key to ensuring that nuclear power plants do not become proliferation risks is in the reactor design together with an international system for controlling fuel.

If the Pu-bearing waste is too difficult to process to extract the useable Pu, the power plant's proliferation risk is significantly reduced.

Generation IV fast reactors can be made to use fuel (and to reprocess fuel within the reactor complex) that is simply not practical to use for weapons.

Could you explain why we need to?

For one thing, if one wished to sell US nuclear technology to other countries to recover investment and decrease cost. Why would the US not want to minimimize proliferation risk?
AM

 

[mheslep]

The key to ensuring that nuclear power plants do not become proliferation risks is in the reactor design together with an international system for controlling fuel.

If the Pu-bearing waste is too difficult to process to extract the useable Pu, the power plant's proliferation risk is significantly reduced.

Generation IV fast reactors can be made to use fuel (and to reprocess fuel within the reactor complex) that is simply not practical to use for weapons.

This appears to be effective only for states that are already cooperative and truly only intend nuclear power. I don't see how the availability of a given reactor design would be effective in stopping an Iran, N. Korea, Syria, etc., who are free to use any reactor they choose.