Slashdot Mirror
Bush Administration to Support Nuclear Recycling
Ironsides writes "The Washington Post is reporting the the Bush Administration is planning to re-enrich spent nuclear fuel so that it can once again be used in nuclear reactors. Included in the plan is a proposal to take spent fuel from other countries and re-enrich it for use as well as domestic spent fuel. This would be a break with a policy set forth by President Carter in an attempt to discourage nuclear proliferation. Currently $250 Million as been proposed for FY 2007 to start developing the technology."
Hell Yeah. Coal puts far more radioactives *into the air* than nuclear produces in a compact, easily stored form. Americans living near coal plants are exposed to *more* radiation than those living near nuclear plants. For a good summary, see/ colmain.html
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text
Acy
-- Too lazy to get a lower UID.
There was a good Scientific American article in December 2005 about using fast reactors to use waste fuel from other reactors to produce power using pyrometalurgical techniques to process the fuel. I'm sorry but all Scientific American has is a preview of the article, entitled http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D556 0-D9B2-137C-99B283414B7F0000&ref=sciam&chanID=sa00 6 "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste".
The gist of the article is that current thermal reactors use only 5% of the enriched nuclear fuel (U235) and the waste includes a lot of Plutonium, U238, and other actinydes that the process in the article would consume. This pyrometalurgical processing also prevents taking out the Plutonium--it takes out the waste products, like Strontium. Since it can consume U238, Thorium, etc. it would be able to "burn" something like 95% of the nuclear fuel and the waste products would be short lived radioactive waste.
I hope this is the procedure they are using, and not breeder reactors or conventional reprocessing.
Ships already have balast tanks that they fill as they burn fuel or hold less cargo weight to ride lower in the water.
:-)
Indeed. But ballast tanks add additional storage room and cannot entirely compensate.
As for putting reactors in ships, US Nuclear carriers are probably a start for anyone attempting to do this.
I can do you one better than that. Meet the good ship NS Savannah, a 595ft long, 22,000 ton merchant ship capable of cruising the oceans full of 8.5 kilotons of cargo at a blistering 21 knots. The ship was part of the Atoms for Peace campaign, and was intended to show off how Nuclear Power could change things forever. Unfortunately, the ship suffered from a few problems:
1) Her streamlined hull (designed more for showcasing purposes than realistic usage) made cargo loading difficult.
2) She needed nuclear facilities all to her own. This added significant expense that could have been marginalized by producing more than one ship.
3) Fuel was extremely cheap when she was constructed. Had the ship remained in service for a few more years, her costs would have been extremely competitive.
If we learn from these experiences, I (and many others) see absolutely no financial or technical reason why nuclear merchant ships cannot again enter service. Especially with the prices of petroleum being as high as they are now. In addition, the Navy's use of nuclear power (as you mentioned) has given us a tremendous amount of experience to draw from.
The only problem is that you need multiple fully trained nuclear technicians to watch the reactors. Hmm... Maybe they can get them from the navy when they retire.
In fact, this has been considered an excellent idea. Most other areas of the service already have this sort of option. For example, Navy pilots often go to work as civilian pilots after they complete their tour. Their experience means that they can command high wages in the civilian market. To date, naval operators are often forced to work as land based nuclear operators if they want the full benefit of their experience, a market that is constantly shrinking. Merchant plants would provide excellent jobs for these operators, as well as reduce the overall costs to merchant fleets.
The multi megawatt electric motors the US Navy is investing in testing/developing would help this a long way. (Electric drive allows for fewer reactors, as you don't need to dedicate one reactor per screw)
Electric drives are actually becoming quite common in the civilian market as well. The Queen Mary 2, for example, went for all-electric propulsors rather than the standard direct drive configuration. This allowed her to mount two directed thrust propulsors in addition to two fixed propulsors.
In any case, multiple screws can provide more maneuverability, but are not an outright requirement. The NS Savannah only had a single screw through which to direct the entirity of her 74MW of power. AFAIK, this was never a major issue.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Not only that, but if they are using the reprocessing technology I think they are, they will be reducing dangerous nuclear waste in the process. The Dec 2005 issue of Sci Am discussed a fast reactor type similar to what is alluded to in the article linked to the main article. This reactor would "burn" all the Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium, leaving waste that only lasts about 300 years instead of 10s of thousands of years, like trace Plutonium left in today's reactor products. Imagine, disposing of nuclear waste that you don't have to worry about outliving civilization.
Look at the TWO WORST nuclear power accidents in the world.
Three Mile Island, with no recorded fatalities.
Chernobyl, of which I studied fairly extensivly in high school, was a combination of a number of factors:
1. Dangerous experimental design
2. Improperly trained people placed in charge. The director came from a coal plant background, not nuclear. The technictians came from the soviet nuclear submarines, which were a much safer design(see void coefficient). They weren't trained on the differences.
3. A test was being done, resulting in the bypass of a number of safety systems.
4. No containment dome. US reactors are housed in concrete containment domes that will limit release of radiation if all else fails. Chernobyl doesn't have it. Instead it has the sarcophagus which was placed after the fact, quickly, in hazardous conditions. It suffers from this.
More at Wikipedia
Basically,Nuclear power has been shown to be extremely safe when handled correctly. For a severe disaster, the flaws would have to start in the very construction of the plant. Modern reactors would be orders of magnitude safer and efficient than our old reactors that still beat coal power in safety and pollution.
I don't read AC A human right
agree with everything you said
here is a good example of an excellent reactor design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
Anyway, I have a very hard time swallowing "safest options on the planet."
What happens if the US descends into anarchy as a result of a stock market crash 100 years from now? Still safe? We've still got to deal with the stuff. And keep guards on the storage sites.
What happens if there is a plage in 2300? We're still paying for those guards on the storage sites, right?
We're gonna have the capital on hand to refurbish the storage containers in a thousand years? Have we made provisions for this?
Burning coal can only cause so much cancer before we run out of the stuff to burn. Nuclear waste is still gonna be dangerous tens of thousands of years from now. Over its entire history, I'll say nuclear is probably more dangerous.
Anyway, changing our lifestyle would be good for us.
--LWM
Amazing the amount of ignorance that prevades here. Carter was busy pushing nukes back then. He did oppose breeder for power, but was never opposed to further studying of them.
In fact, under Carter, he started our drive towards alternatives AND helped push towards LWR, which he believed were safe options. Considering that Mr. Carter IS a nuclear engineer, I think that he had a better understanding of the technology back in the 60's/70's, then all most poster here have today.
Too be honest, if we had stayed on the course, our economy would be heavily invested into Nukes and alternative energy. The problem is that reagan backed out of support for alternatives and nukes (but not necessarily to oil), bush and clinton did nothing to move our society towards non-oil, and GWB helped push us back to it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.