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

  • Thread starter Thread starter FlyingEng
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of incineration as a treatment method for nuclear waste, particularly focusing on why it is not more widely adopted in nuclear power plants (NPPs) in Europe and the US, despite its use in Japan and some Eastern European countries. Participants explore the implications of incineration for waste volume reduction and the associated costs.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that incineration is offered by a company for nuclear waste treatment and questions its limited use in NPPs outside Japan and Eastern Europe, suggesting it could be beneficial for volume reduction.
  • Another participant clarifies that while incineration does not destroy radionuclides, it can effectively reduce the volume of low-level contaminated waste, such as protective clothing.
  • A different participant emphasizes that the volume of radioactive waste is not a significant issue, pointing instead to political challenges regarding waste storage as a more pressing concern.
  • One participant highlights the potential for significant volume reduction of spent resin from the AP 1000 reactor if incineration or pyrolysis were employed, questioning why this method is not more widely adopted.
  • Another participant agrees, mentioning the high costs associated with waste packaging and suggesting that greater size reduction through incineration could provide considerable benefits for low-end intermediate-level waste (ILW).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance of waste volume and the political issues surrounding storage, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain without a clear consensus on the adoption of incineration for nuclear waste treatment.

Contextual Notes

Participants discuss the limitations of incineration regarding the destruction of radionuclides and the implications of storage costs, but these aspects remain unresolved and depend on specific definitions and assumptions about waste management practices.

FlyingEng
Messages
8
Reaction score
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
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
9K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
12K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
20K
Replies
14
Views
11K