Slashdot Mirror


Fukushima To Become Nuclear Dump?

mdsolar writes "Japan's atomic energy specialists are discussing a plan to make the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant a storage site for radioactive waste from the crippled station run by Tokyo Electric Power Co."

9 of 255 comments (clear)

  1. Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Words are fun.

    "Dump" vs "Storage Site" or "Spent Fuel Storage" or "Waste Storage".

    You can tell when someone is trying to sensationalize a story by the words they choose.

    1. Re:Words by SomeKDEUser · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except spent fuel can be recycled in a breeder reactor. It is only "waste" if you give up on using it!

    2. Re:Words by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Calling it a dump is hardly sensational. The word "dump" has always had, in common parlance, a definition that equates to "a place where things no longer wanted or useful are discarded". Ergo, any place where we put the mess made by nuclear energy processes is a dump. It may rub your pro-nuke sensibilities the wrong, but you really need to get over that, because calling it "storage" is just plain stupid. Storage? Seriously? Stored there until... what? You find a way to render it useful for something? Please.

    3. Re:Words by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is the theory. In the practice there are currently only three breeding reactors online, one in India, one in Russia and one in Japan (that one had a previous sodium leak and fire). What makes things even worse, two of these three are research reactors, only the russian one is the real deal.

      Breeding reactors are very expensive and complicated to operate, it is far cheaper to dump spent fuel somewhere. So yes, it is waste.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  2. Nuts! by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, make a nuclear waste dump on a site known to be hit by magnitude 9.0 earthquakes and Tsunamis. Great idea that shows how safety conscious the nuclear industry is.

  3. Re:Sea level rise by mdsolar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think you are considering sea level rise this century which will likely be less than six meters. But nuclear waste is a problem for much longer than 90 years. The number should be 80 meters for complete melting plus tsunami wash so 150 meters or higher above current see level would be needed for a nuclear dump.

  4. 100.000 years by captainpanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The comments here once again show that people only look for the duration of their own lifespans (or perhaps a little more) regarding the storage of nuclear waste.

    Nuclear storage must be done in a place which is inherently safe. Which is safe without human intervention in the next decades/centuries/millenia.
    You can't dump it somewhere and make a plan to "build a dike if need be". Who will guarantee that a dike will be built if need be in 250 years from now? Or 2500 years from now?

  5. Re:Waste by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    then you want breeder reactors, which leave 1/10th the amount of waste, generate 10x more power, and have less harmful radioactive waste byproducts with halflives of a century rather than 10,000 years

    problem is, breeder reactors make plutonium. nobody wants anyone making plutonium

    nuclear power is over, it's a historical, ostracized energy source as of march 11, 2011. all serious nations are moving away from nuclear. nuclear is a wonderful power source in all regards except for the waste nightmare and the fact that althought hings rarely go wrong, when they do, they REALLY go wrong

    if you deny nuclear power is an endangered species, you indeed are living in denial, and you just remind me of baghdad bob:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  6. Re:Waste by Will.Woodhull · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree with the above, but want to point out that the ultimate failure of the nuclear power industry has nothing to do with a lack of foresight by engineering or science.

    The underlying problem is one of an inadequate accounting system. The nuclear power industry is the first time anyone has tried to do cost benefit analysis on processes where the overwhelmingly greatest costs are in managing the waste stream: post-production costs. Early accounting systems were developed to manage costs of feedstocks, production, and moving product to market. Waste was not accounted for, which led to the incredible pollution problems of the last century. Handling the accounting of waste management or post-production costs continues to be a kind of correction tacked on to the basic bookkeeping systems in current use, rather than an integral part of any accounting system.

    If it had been otherwise, it is doubtful that any business would have ventured into nuclear power generation. It would have been obvious that the total cost, including handling the waste stream, is too great to justify any reasonable investment.

    --
    Will