Slashdot Mirror
UK Scientists Designing Cement To Safely Store Nuclear Waste For 100,000 Years (ibtimes.co.uk)
An anonymous reader writes: A team of British scientists are working on designing a form of cement which could safely withstand the harmful effects of nuclear waste for thousands of years. The team at the UK's synchrotron science facility, Diamond Light Source, said the project will be vital as Britain looks to expand on its nuclear industry.
The team believe the new material is 50% better at reducing the impact of radiation than current storage solutions. The government is set to choose a location of where to store the estimated 300,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste which is estimated to have been accumulated by the UK by 2030.
The team believe the new material is 50% better at reducing the impact of radiation than current storage solutions. The government is set to choose a location of where to store the estimated 300,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste which is estimated to have been accumulated by the UK by 2030.
Because: politics.
I believe what they mean is "concrete" rather than "cement".
Cement is a powder that is one component of concrete;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cement
Together with sand, water, and aggregate (rock) they undergo a chemical reaction (when mixed) to form concrete. Changing the quality, component ratio and admixtures of concrete can dramatically change various characteristics like strength, set time, resistance to water pressure, etc. I can remember seeing concrete that was very dark (almost black-ish) in color. I was told it contained a lot of lead for use in radioactivity shielding.
Just sayin'
Er, assuming that was a serious question...
100,000 years is ten half-lives (for a 10,000 half life). The amount of the original material left would be (1/2)^10, or a mere 1/1024th the amount of material.
As far as the amount of (useful) energy left, that depends on what the original material decays into, vs what it was originally.
-- Alastair
The waste is composed of a mix of radioactive materials with widely varying half lives. Some half lives, such as Strontium-94 are only 75 seconds, which means that it'll be completely gone in a few months, and radiation/heat produced by the waste will drop. Another common waste product Sr-90 has a half life of 30 years, but there are also waste products with half lives of millions of years. Most of the danger comes from the parts with intermediate half lives, as they produce lots of radiation, and will do so for years.
The 100,000 years thing is a scam meant to make the nuclear waste problem look intractable. LONG before that, the "waste" will be no more radioactive than natural rocks laying out in the desert in the U.S.
Not quite. Unless the actinides have been removed by reprocessing the spent fuel does not return to the same level as ore for a few hundred thousand years. The period chosen: 100,000 years is about right - not quite long enough to reach that point, but pretty good. The legacy waste they are dealing with contains actinides and is a nightmare to try reprocess due to its non-standard composition.
Imagining that all waste problems are really that of disposing of nearly non-existent reprocessed fuel waste with all actinides removed is silly. They are dealing with real waste that really needs disposal, not hypothetical types of waste.
BTW: the (quasi*) natural rocks laying out in the desert (tailings) are a significant waste problem since they have been removed from their stable geological context.
*They have been physically and chemically altered.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
All you need to know about Robert Schoch is that he believes in telekinesis and the paranormal.
Actually nuclear energy without reprocessing spent fuel; is bad proposition, because it is not sustainable.
Assuming that we use standard uranium/plutonium pallets; we will run out of fuel in 30-50 years, if we do reprocess it will last us few million years (it is a very energy dense).
That is why countries like France, Russia and etc; which are serious about nuclear energy do have reprocessing plants.
The technology is there it is well understood, but there is no political will to commit to it; that is why we are burring nuclear waste.
The only real concern is that most of the older reactor designs allow to generate enriched uranium/plutonium that is suitable for WMDs.
This is actually remedied in the new designs like thorium reactors.