Laser pulses could reduce the half-life of nuclear waste to just 30 minutes

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the potential use of laser technology to reduce the half-life of nuclear waste, specifically exploring the feasibility and implications of using lasers to transmute isotopes into less harmful forms. The scope includes theoretical considerations, technical challenges, and speculative outcomes related to nuclear physics and waste management.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that if successful, this method could significantly alleviate the nuclear waste dilemma and potentially earn a Nobel prize for its proponent.
  • There is a discussion about the energy requirements for removing protons or neutrons from nuclei, with some noting that it takes a substantial amount of energy to achieve this.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the efficiency of lasers for such processes, with one participant questioning whether the energy cost would outweigh the benefits gained from the nuclear reactions.
  • Participants explore the implications of transmuting isotopes, such as the conversion of Pu-239 to Np-238, and the subsequent decay processes involved.
  • Questions are posed about the energy levels of photons required to remove protons from nuclei, with some suggesting that achieving the necessary energy might be feasible through advanced laser techniques.
  • One participant mentions existing technologies that produce high-energy photons, indicating that there are methods already in use that could be relevant to this proposal.
  • There is speculation about the consequences of accelerating radioactive decay, including the potential for increased radiation activity and the implications for storage and safety.
  • Another participant challenges the understanding of what it means for an atom to be radioactive, suggesting that common perceptions may be flawed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of viewpoints, with no consensus reached on the feasibility or implications of the proposed laser transmutation method. There are competing ideas regarding the energy efficiency, safety, and theoretical underpinnings of the process.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include uncertainties about the energy requirements for proton removal, the efficiency of laser technology in this context, and the specific isotopes involved in the proposed transmutation processes.

ElliotSmith
Messages
167
Reaction score
104
TL;DR
Nobel-prize winning scientist believes he can use pulsed lasers to reduce the radioactivity half-life of nuclear waste from millions of years, to as little as 30 minutes.
Engineering news on Phys.org
It takes a huge amount of energy to kick out a proton or neutron from a nucleus.

Most of the problematic nuclear waste could be used in accelerator-driven subcritical reactors. You even get some energy out of the process. The few isotopes that are not suitable for transmutation there (neutron cross section too low) might be an interesting target for laser transmutation.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: tech99, DEvens, anorlunda and 1 other person
The article is not particularly revealing as to exactly what is being suggested. But it seems like Gérard Mourou is suggesting using lasers to kick protons out of the nuclei of troublesome nuclear waste. I have my concerns about the energetics of such a process. Lasers are not known for being especially efficient. If it takes more energy to do it than you got from the nuclear reactor, there would seem to be a problem.

But just for fun. Suppose he can kick a proton out. Pu-239 starts with a half life of 24,100 years. Lose a proton you get Np-238. It has a half-life, by Beta decay, of 2.1 days to Pu-238. Hmm... Getting messy.

Sigh. It's getting more messy than I have time to do correctly just at the moment. But as a ballpark back-of-the-envelope estimate, each proton pulled out uses about 5 MeV, and a fission produces round about 200 MeV. So it's pretty expensive to do this proton extraction stuff. And the stuff that is produced by a single proton removal isn't all that much preferable to what you have before.
 
Last edited:
DEvens said:
Suppose you could bump it down again to Pu-237.

Bump from where? Knocking a proton out of what nucleus? (Same question for the further bumps.)
 
PeterDonis said:
Bump from where? Knocking a proton out of what nucleus? (Same question for the further bumps.)

Hmmm... I did that wrong, didn't I. Should have been Pu-239 going to Np-238, since he's kicking out a proton.
 
I don't know a lot about smacking stuff with lasers. But to get a proton out of a nucleus, wouldn't it be necessary to have a photon with enough energy to get the proton over its energy hump? That is, typically a few MeV.

Since visible light is in the few-electron-volt range, does this guy really have lasers that produce MeV photons?

Hmmm... Googling around, maybe it's possible to get those several-MeV photons.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1102.4451
Seems the idea is to point a laser head-on into a beam of GeV electrons. Back scattered photons will come back with the required energy.
 
Last edited:
We do this already, and it is the brightest source of photons in the multi-MeV range we have. ~10 MeV here

It has been proposed to use heavy nuclei with a single electron as beams in the same way. Their gamma factor (speed) is lower but their cross section is orders of magnitude larger. At the LHC this could produce photons with tens to hundreds of MeV with unprecedented brilliance. The LHC already tested the acceleration step last year. Longer comment and further links here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc and DEvens
Wouldn't accelerating the radioactive decay of nuclear material to 30 minutes cause it to expel all of it's stored radiation within that timeframe?
 
The proposal transmutes the nuclei to different nuclei, so it's not the same. Anyway: Yes, it would increase the activity a lot. That's what you want. Store it for a day and it becomes harmless (or just chemical waste, or maybe even some useful chemical).
 
  • #10
ElliotSmith said:
stored radiation
This is at best, a flawed mental image of what it means for an atom to be radioactive.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
6K
Replies
29
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
10K