Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on November 25, 2013, 10:15:18 AM
-
So I was reading the other day about the latest political issues with Yucca Mountain, and this made me wonder: how are other countries dealing with the long-term storage of nuclear waste? Nuclear power is much more popular in Europe and Asia. Are there European and Asian equivalents of Yucca Mountain, or do the plants store on site or what?
-
I read somewhere that the Soviets were putting nuke waste in deep old oil wells under the theory that the oil stayed put for millions of years, so the nuke waste should too.
(On the other hand, they were using oil wells in satellite countries, so maybe they weren't all that confident of the outcome.)
-
Don't they recycle the waste through more efficient reactors, a process that reduces it to much less harmful levels?
-
Here in Sweden it's stored temporarily in a facility north of the Oskarshamn Nuclear Power Plant, until they can decide where they are going to build the permanent storage. I can't remember if they've made a decision where this is going to be yet.
-
Don't they recycle the waste through more efficient reactors, a process that reduces it to much less harmful levels?
They can, unfortunately the reprocessing activity is also related to the production of weapon-grade plutonium as well, and is discouraged or avoided as a "proliferation" concern.
Here in Sweden it's stored temporarily in a facility north of the Oskarshamn Nuclear Power Plant, until they can decide where they are going to build the permanent storage. I can't remember if they've made a decision where this is going to be yet.
I remember seeing one of the Nordic countries had dug a tunnel out to sea into the continental shelf, and had a huge cylindrical cavern they were going to fill up, and seal off behind them, and eventually it would just get drawn down into the Earth's mantle, since that part of the crust was in a subduction zone.
-
I remember seeing one of the Nordic countries had dug a tunnel out to sea into the continental shelf, and had a huge cylindrical cavern they were going to fill up, and seal off behind them, and eventually it would just get drawn down into the Earth's mantle, since that part of the crust was in a subduction zone.
^^ That right there is using your noggin. Impressive thought process.
-
They can, unfortunately the reprocessing activity is also related to the production of weapon-grade plutonium as well, and is discouraged or avoided as a "proliferation" concern.
I remember seeing one of the Nordic countries had dug a tunnel out to sea into the continental shelf, and had a huge cylindrical cavern they were going to fill up, and seal off behind them, and eventually it would just get drawn down into the Earth's mantle, since that part of the crust was in a subduction zone.
This perhaps? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository) Finnish site.
Or this? Swedish Repository. (http://www.skb.se/e6ba4749-0630-4811-9b1c-6e356a8313e1.fodoc)
I think the Norwegians have nuclear power plants too, but I don't know what they do with their fuel. The Danes don't have any nuclear power plants.
-
Hmm... According to the IAEA or whatever, it's not licensed/approved, since subduction zone burial counts as "sea disposal". :facepalm:
-
Why in the *expletive deleted*it don't we just jettison it into space?
-
Why in the *expletive deleted* don't we just jettison it into space?
gets messy sometimes
-
I remember seeing one of the Nordic countries had dug a tunnel out to sea into the continental shelf, and had a huge cylindrical cavern they were going to fill up, and seal off behind them, and eventually it would just get drawn down into the Earth's mantle, since that part of the crust was in a subduction zone.
Queue bad SyFy movie with nuclear volcanoes
-
gets messy sometimes
Seems we've reached an era where our space launches are pretty reliable.
-
Seems we've reached an era where our space launches are pretty reliable.
i quit doing gas fireplaces since cleanup was a 2 square block area
this is considerably worse
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/why-not-just-dispose-nuclear-waste-sun
-
Why in the *expletive deleted* don't we just jettison it into space?
Weight.
-
Weight.
This right here.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/astp.html_prt.htm
Today, it costs $10,000 to put a pound of payload in Earth orbit.
-
i quit doing gas fireplaces since cleanup was a 2 square block area
this is considerably worse
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/why-not-just-dispose-nuclear-waste-sun
Eff it. I'll get drunk at parties and tell people it could be done anyways.
-
Subduction zone burial is the best option, if you're a moron that doesn't want to reprocess or reuse the fuel. We've double downed on the stupid.
-
Vitrify and drop in a 10,000ft + deep part of the ocean. We don't have much nuclear waste. Much less if you get rid of low level crap like the barrels of used work clothing and such. Nothing wrong with Yucca mountain either.
-
Subduction zone burial is the best option, if you're a moron that doesn't want to reprocess or reuse the fuel. We've double downed on the stupid.
Reprocessing and reusing the fuel. Hmmmmm. My father was in favor of that decades ago.
I suspect he'd have liked you. ;)
-
Queue bad SyFy movie with nuclear volcanoes
Yes! Hopefully with mutant, triple-breasted Amazonians!
-
Seems we've reached an era where our space launches are pretty reliable.
Tell that to the Challenger crew.
-
Reprocessing and reusing the fuel. Hmmmmm. My father was in favor of that decades ago. . . .
IIRC, it was Jimmy Carter who decided we would NOT reprocess and reuse fuel because his then 11 year old daughter was concerned about nuclear proliferation, making him the best president France ever had. (The Frenchies reprocess fuel.)
-
IIRC, it was Jimmy Carter who decided we would NOT reprocess and reuse fuel because his then 11 year old daughter was concerned about nuclear proliferation, making him the best president France ever had. (The Frenchies reprocess fuel.)
Well, those demos have to get advice from somewhere.................. :angel:
( >:D )
-
If you're putting it permanently underground then that doesn't seem like "storage" which implies you're going to go back and get it someday.
;/
-
Why in the *expletive deleted* don't we just jettison it into space?
Why do we want to put our future fuel that far out? Personally, I've always figured that Yucca Mountain, designed to last tens of thousands of years, would last less than a few centuries before our descendents dig it up to get at our 'waste'.
-
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/finland-nuclear-power-radioactive-waste-storage_n_626050d5e4b09c32edf7be5a
Good for the Finns.
-
Glad this thread was exhumed.
Very good article. The substance "thoron" was a new one on me. It's Rn-220 and I guess it has enough special properties to be named thoron.
Of especial interest to me was:
Overwhelming majorities of self-identified Democrats, women and those without college degrees opposed nuclear power. More Republicans than Democrats supported expanding nuclear power in a Pew Research Center survey from January. A plurality of U.S. adults, 35%, favored encouraging production of nuclear power, while 26% wanted the energy source discouraged and 37% said it should be neither encouraged nor discouraged.[/size][/b]
It figures. Man, there are times I want to switch from lifelong "family Democrat," to Terrycrat, but I'm stuck in my ways and sometimes it's beneficial to identify as a Democrat instead of the raging hyperconservative I really am.
Terrycrat, 230RN
-
Putting the "waste" under the ocean in a subduction zone doesn't strike me as carefully researched.
What happens if the burial area is exposed to the sea before the waste is drawn down into the mantle? How many years/decades will it take for the waste to be sealed away from the ocean? If the half life of this waste is in the tens of thousands of years, what is the possibility of some coming back up in a volcanic eruption? [popcorn]
-
Explain it like I'm five:
We gather the uranium or whatever from the Earth in small amounts.
We process those small amounts into larger, more useable chunks.
We use those chunks until they are less useful, but still radioactive.
We then dispose of those chunks.
If the material is still dangerously radioactive, why can't we:
Keep using the chunks in another system, or
Reprocess the material so it is still useful, or
Grind it up into the original size and put it back where we found it.
-
Thread veer:
This is the 25 year price chart for Uranium. I wonder what was going on in 2007?
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52035574756_6e2b6e0800_c.jpg)
http://www.dailymetalprice.com/metalpricecharts.php?c=u&u=lb&d=0
-
Explain it like I'm five:
We gather the uranium or whatever from the Earth in small amounts.
We process those small amounts into larger, more useable chunks.
We use those chunks until they are less useful, but still radioactive.
We then dispose of those chunks.
If the material is still dangerously radioactive, why can't we:
Keep using the chunks in another system, or
Reprocess the material so it is still useful, or
Grind it up into the original size and put it back where we found it.
They do that in France. We don't do it here because President Carter said we can't, and nobody has the balls to rescind that order.