Slashdot Mirror
NMR Shows That Nuclear Storage Degrades
eldavojohn writes to point out recent research using nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) imagery that shows that certain nuclear waste storage containers may not be as safe as previously thought. From the article: "[R]adiation emitted from [plutonium] waste could transform one candidate storage material into less durable glass after just 1,400 years — much more quickly than thought... The problem is that the radioactive waste damages the matrix that contains it. Many of the waste substances, including plutonium-239, emit alpha radiation, which travels for only very short distances (barely a few hundredths of a millimeter) in the ceramic, but creates havoc along the way."
First of all, why is that stuff sitting in a nuclear waste container? It's good, fissile material that could supply much-needed energy to our power grid. Stop being a bunch of pansies and BURN IT IN A REACTOR! That will not only massively reduce the amount of waste, but it will turn much of the remaining material into extremely hot isotopes that will go inert (or nearly so) in a much shorter period of time.
Secondly, Pu-239 emits a very small amount of radiation. With a half-life of 24,000 years, it barely even raises the background levels. At a whopping 10 fissions per kilo per second, I doubt that much of the radiation is even escaping the material. I presume that the real safety problem is Pu-240 contaimination. A problem that wouldn't exist if they burned the materials instead of storing them.
Lastly, can someone please inform the press that the 1980's called? They want their "one of the most deadly by-products" scare-mongering back. There are far more deadly materials in this world than a bit of plutonium. Caffeine being a prime example. We dillute caffeine so much that we don't realize that too a few grams is actually quite deadly. (Find out how much of your favorite caffinated product would be needed to kill you here.) So maybe we can start reporting these things for what they are (engineering and safety issues) rather than what they're not (mini-Chernobyl levels of contamination). Maybe? *sigh* I suppose not.
Someone should setup a lobby group who's job would be to convince the government to let us use our nuclear fuels instead of declaring everything as waste in a mostly useless gesture to stop the mythical nuclear terrorist of the month.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Burying waste at sea is a violation of international law.
My own idea was to bury the waste in a subduction zone, so that the waste would be drawn back into the Earth's mantle. Turns out, however, that that's also considered burial at sea.
No, I don't remember where I read the above info. Some site dedicated to discussion of the disposal of nuclear waste, IIRC.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
1) If this stuff is still hot, doesn't it mean there's still energy there we could use?
nuclear waste
2) This stuff came from the ground, why can't we put it back there?
Geological Disposal
Sincerely,
Teh Wikipedia whore
music lover since 1969
Wrong. We don't reprocess fuel because it has been banned since the 1970's, an executive order signed by Jimmy Carter. Good old Jimmy Carter, he will be remembered because he felt so bad for everything that ever happened. Felt so bad.
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/pd112801b.html
http://www.ananuclear.org/CarterHLW.html
Because Jimmy and crew, at the time, felt SO DAMN BAD about how scary nuclear anything was that the best they could do was ban doing something useful with the waste.
http://www.ncpa.org/iss/bud/pd112801b.html
It was banned by presidential order by Jimmy Carter in 1977 due to fears of reproccessing resulting in proliferation.
Still, reprocessing is going on today in France and Japan, at the least.
Like others said, the 'waste' sitting on site could be reprocessed to provide enough fuel and reduce the amount of waste to the point that Yucca mountain wouldn't be necessary.
Going with breeder reactors and other more efficient designs would be good too.
Personally, if I was the EO(Evil Overlord) of the USA, I'd institute a practice of reprocessing nuclear waste as well as a building program to replace all the coal plants with modern nuclear ones. Kyoto, eat my dust. After shutting down all the coal plants, I'd work on replacing the old nuclear ones.
Result: Clean, safe, plentiful electricity, reduced emissions, etc...
I don't read AC A human right
Three Mile Island is an example of how the system actually works to protect.
Fun Three Mile Island fact: The TMI reactor suffered a form of worst-case failure -- a runaway reaction when all of the control rods were removed and could not be reinserted -- and as a result released less radiation into the atmosphere than a coal plant does in a single day of normal operation.
Reactor designs have only improved since then.
There are political forces at work against nuclear power, and they have galvanized a large portion of the populace with fear of the nuclear boogeyman. There is no rational reason to fear nuclear power any more. If we can work on that issue, then maybe we can start to work on the political issues. With people still screaming in terror at the thought of nuclear power, we can never build the momentum to take on the special interests.
The enemies of Democracy are
It's actually a year of normal operation. But it's still an excellent point.
More radioactive doesn't necessarily mean better fuel. You must be able to control the reaction if it's a fuel. Safety is a huge concern.
The problems with storage of 'spent' fuel from nuclear reactors go beyond inadequate technology for 'containment' and the likelihood of highly radioactive material (and heavy metals) getting into the environment. Radioactivity is both carcinogenic and mutagenic - not usually creating 'super heroes' but rather mental retardation, crippling deformities, and nasty genetic diseases. Exposure to radiation is like playing 'russian roulette' with your genes, and almost all genetic damage is harmful.
It also includes HEAT, and as the thermal balance of this planet changes with buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide, methane and other heat-trapping gasses, the problems of excess heat generated by nuclear waste are amplified.
Plutonium does not tidily decay into radioactively inert (but still chemically toxic)lead, but instead into a 'decay chain' of other - also radioactive - elements. It's a crumbling, poisonous mess that keeps generating more heat. Among the many possible decay chains:
Plutonium-239 - half-life: 24,110 years
alpha decay into Uranium-235 - half-life: 704,000,000 years
alpha decay into Thorium-231 - half-life: 25.2 hours
beta decay into Protactinium-231 - half-life: 32,700 years
alpha decay into Actinium - half-life: 21.8 years
beta decay into Thorium-227 - half-life: 18.72 days
alpha decay into Radium-233 - half-life: 11.43 days
alpha decay into Radon-219 - half-life: 3.96 seconds
alpha decay into Polonium-215 - half-life: 1.78 milliseconds
alpha decay into Lead-211 - half-life: 36.1 minutes
beta decay into Bismuth-211 - half-life: 2.15 minutes
alpha decay into Thallium-207 - half-life: 4.77 minutes
beta decay into Lead-207 -: stable
Every one of these 'decays' creates more heat, as well as more radiation... I don't know if anyone's ever calculated the impact of all that heat on the finely-tuned balances that make this planet inhabitable by human beings?
In my understanding, anyway, the most important questions of the present include 'how can we - while we still have time and resources - redesign and restructure our society so that we don't NEED nuclear power (or excess fossil fuel consumption) for high quality-of-life. It's a lot more than buying organic coffee and sometimes riding a bicycle.
It was banned by presidential order by Jimmy Carter in 1977 due to fears of reproccessing resulting in proliferation.
Which might have made some political sense at the time, given that we were in the middle of a cold war and everyone was insane about making more and more nuclear weapons.
But now it's just dumb, and should eventually be reversed. There's no political will to do it right now for a number of reasons. It's cheaper to just buy new fuel, so the power plant lobby doesn't really want it to happen. The far left is scared shitless by anything nuclear, so even though it's a wise environmental move they sure as hell don't want to support it, and the far right wants to bury it's head in the sand with any environmental concern. So who's left? A few geeks who value efficiency and aren't afraid of things they don't initially understand.
AccountKiller
How about the Geneva Conventions. They include a clause against torture, but the US has Used torture in the "War on Terror".
Before I post, let me make it clear that I am completely opposed to using torture as a method of interrogation, specifically because the information you get isn't reliable. That said:
The Third Geneva Convention covers the treatment of POW's. Article 2, specifically "That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."" (Emphasis mine).
Basically we don't have to act under the Geneva convention because our foe #1: Didn't sign the convention and #2: Isn't following it.
It's a tragedy, and I really wish we would take the moral high ground (Which is why I voted strongly for representatives that were anti-torture in the recent election), but according to the convention, we're playing by the rules we agreed to.
Do you Gentoo!?
And it's widely known to be nonsense. If you want to make bombs, uranium is a perfectly adequate material - plutonium is not required. The US used plutonium during the Cold War because it produces more destruction per dollar - a pure cost decision, which terrorists aren't likely to care about. Of all the nuclear bombs ever deployed outside test sites (two), exactly half (one) were uranium bombs.
The chances of an atom of waste buried in moving groundwater ending up in the human food supply are less than 1 in a trillion.
Studies have shown water does travel away from Yucca hundreds of miles.
We intend to bury it in Yucca mountain (not moving groundwater) which is an extremely stable geological formation which hasn't moved for millions of years and almost certainly won't move for a long time.
The area around Yucca is seismically active, and has experienced earthquakes. It is NOT geologically stable. In the 1970s a government building was damaged during an earthquake there, and in 2002 another earthquake happened not far from there.
FalconShould there be a Law?