- #1
caldweab
- 260
- 9
So what do you guys think of yucca mountain as a permanent waste site?
A federal appeals court said on Tuesday that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission can no longer delay a decision on whether to issue a permit for the long-stalled nuclear waste project at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
Of course, it is! However, the government needs a viable policy: either we adopt a once-through fuel cycle approach, and the spent/used fuel is directly deposited for long-term (semi-permanent) storage, or the fuel is reprocessed and the fission products (high level waste) are vitrified/calcined and deposited permanently.caldweab said:So what do you guys think of yucca mountain as a permanent waste site?
Viable, if we really want to dispose of our waste instead of recycling it. But then, we can store it in such a way as to make it recoverable.caldweab said:So what do you guys think of yucca mountain as a permanent waste site?
Astronuc said:Of course, it is! However, the government needs a viable policy: either we adopt a once-through fuel cycle approach, and the spent/used fuel is directly deposited for long-term (semi-permanent) storage, or the fuel is reprocessed and the fission products (high level waste) are vitrified/calcined and deposited permanently.
It's technical feasible, just not political palatable for some.
Thermalne said:I've heard some murmurs of recycling in USA isn't economically feasible either. Do you know anything related to this?
Astronuc said:Of course, it is! However, the government needs a viable policy: either we adopt a once-through fuel cycle approach, and the spent/used fuel is directly deposited for long-term (semi-permanent) storage, or the fuel is reprocessed and the fission products (high level waste) are vitrified/calcined and deposited permanently.
It's technical feasible, just not political palatable for some.
It does cost more to reprocess spent/used nuclear fuel than to fabricate it from extracted and refined ore.Thermalne said:I've heard some murmurs of recycling in USA isn't economically feasible either. Do you know anything related to this?
1. Including the cost of the repository?Astronuc said:It is more economical to simply send a used fuel assembly to a repository and buy a fresh fuel assembly.
1. Including the cost of the repository?
2. I'm unclear on if the repository was intended to be a one-way street: Once in the repository, was it intended that we could go back and get it later if we decided later to reprocess?
the_wolfman said:... When that day nears you'll see the nuclear industry make a push to resolve the political, technological, and proliferation issues associated with reprocessing.
A repository is needed whether spent/used fuel is directly disposed (within canisters) or if encapsulated fission products are diposed in the repository. The fission products would be about 5% of the fuel mass, so more fuel could be handled in the repository assuming the recovered fuel (U, Pu and TU) were stored until used.russ_watters said:1. Including the cost of the repository?
2. I'm unclear on if the repository was intended to be a one-way street: Once in the repository, was it intended that we could go back and get it later if we decided later to reprocess?
Who is that, exactly? Who do you think is "the nuclear industry?"
Dominion and Duke Energy are utilities and operators of nuclear plants. AREVA and Westinghouse (Toshiba) are nuclear techology suppliers, and they do have the wherewithal to reprocess and recycle spent fuel, however, they need support from the government.the_wolfman said:Companies that are involved in building, operating, or designing nuclear power plants. Some example are Areva, Dominion, Westinghouse, and Duke Energy
Astronuc said:Dominion and Duke Energy are utilities and operators of nuclear plants. AREVA and Westinghouse (Toshiba) are nuclear techology suppliers, and they do have the wherewithal to reprocess and recycle spent fuel, however, they need support from the government.
AREVA is building a MOX plant to use downblended WG-Pu as part of a DOE/NNSA program to utilize the Pu.
Part of the reason is that is quite diffuse and hard to defend against theft or terrorism. Another reason, IMO, is that the waste is stored in cooling ponds in some places, dry-cask storage in others, and a mix of the two in others. IMO, it would be expedient for the government to set some standards for storage in a central site. Astronuc can probably tell us how long the power-plant operators snd power-users have been taxed for the creation of a central storage facility, only to have it denied over and over.Aaronvan said:Why do we even need a national central waste repository? Stored the waste on site until we develop way to economically reprocess it.
At about $10K+ / kg, that would be a very expensive proposition, as compared to a $10s or $100s/kg. The DOE is supposed to take the spent fuel, and either reprocess it or deposit it in a repository indefinitely.David Christo said:Why not send the waste into space for disposal?
turbo said:Part of the reason is that is quite diffuse and hard to defend against theft or terrorism. Another reason, IMO, is that the waste is stored in cooling ponds in some places, dry-cask storage in others, and a mix of the two in others. IMO, it would be expedient for the government to set some standards for storage in a central site. Astronuc can probably tell us how long the power-plant operators snd power-users have been taxed for the creation of a central storage facility, only to have it denied over and over.
turbo said:Part of the reason is that is quite diffuse and hard to defend against theft or terrorism. Another reason, IMO, is that the waste is stored in cooling ponds in some places, dry-cask storage in others, and a mix of the two in others. IMO, it would be expedient for the government to set some standards for storage in a central site. Astronuc can probably tell us how long the power-plant operators snd power-users have been taxed for the creation of a central storage facility, only to have it denied over and over.
Yeah it's safer than just having it sitting there waiting for a disaster to occur and of course there is only a finite amount of space in spent fuel pools. They are more of an after thought to me, we should have had a permanent waste storage solution decades ago.middlephysics said:Wait a second- it's safer to transport used nuclear fuel from all over the country (by trucks?) than to have each facility have their own storage site? Really?
This is a great thread sad to see it not continuing
caldweab said:Yeah it's safer than just having it sitting there waiting for a disaster to occur and of course there is only a finite amount of space in spent fuel pools. They are more of an after thought to me, we should have had a permanent waste storage solution decades ago.
Argentum Vulpes said:We weren't working towards a permanent storage solution, the US was working on reprocessing its civilian slightly used nuclear fuel. But thanks to the Indians, and the over reaction of Ford and then further over reaction of Carter reprocessing was effectively killed in the US.
By the time Regan removed the ban the US had lost all of its brain power and facilities in the reprocessing field. This with the low cost of virgin uranium, then the Clinton megatons to megawatts treaty, reprocessing is very cold in the grave in the US. So we need a more semi permanent dry storage till the US either buys reprocessing or starts working on it.
Argentum Vulpes said:reprocessing is very cold in the grave in the US.
nikkkom said:Won't Hanford reprocessing plant be able to process civilian spent fuel after it's done with military waste?
Argentum Vulpes said:My understanding of the Hanford complex is that the reprocessors were shut down in the 70's and were never reopened. And they are now on the long list of D&D (decimation & destruction) at the sight.
nikkkom said:I'm talking about this:
http://www.hanford.gov/page.cfm/wtp
When finished, it's supposed to be able to vitrify the nasty stuff.
I suppose the end result (steel containers with glass) will be stored in Hanford too.
Add a front-end PUREX stage to it and it's a complete reprocessing solution.
Yucca Mountain is a ridge located in Nevada that has been proposed as a potential site for the long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste. It is being considered because it is a remote and geologically stable location that has been studied for decades.
The current design for Yucca Mountain can hold up to 77,000 tons of nuclear waste, which is the amount that has been projected to be produced by the United States' nuclear power plants.
Many studies have been conducted to determine the safety of Yucca Mountain for nuclear waste storage. The site has been found to have a low risk of earthquakes, volcanic activity, and human intrusion. However, some concerns have been raised about the potential for water infiltration and corrosion of waste containers over time.
The nuclear waste stored at Yucca Mountain will remain radioactive for thousands of years. The current design for the storage facility includes multiple barriers to prevent the release of radioactive material into the environment for at least 10,000 years.
The main potential risks of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain include the possibility of water infiltration and corrosion of waste containers, as well as the risk of human intrusion in the future. There are also concerns about the transportation of nuclear waste to the site and the potential for accidents during this process.