The nuclear debate...

[Peter Ward]

How much "hot" nuclear waste do you think you'd need to store, after 10 years of nuclear power plant production (assuming the lastest fast reactor technologies).

a) a small mountain
b) several train loads
c) volume equivalent to a household refrigerator
d) volume equivalent to a lunchbox

The answer is? (I enjoy seeing healthy discussions! )

[AG Hybrid (Adrian)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

How much "hot" nuclear waste do you think you'd need to store, after 10 years of nuclear power plant production (assuming the lastest fast reactor technologies).

a) a small mountain
b) several train loads
c) volume equivalent to a household refrigerator
d) volume equivalent to a lunchbox

The answer is? (I enjoy seeing healthy discussions! )

As much as Id like to say. The parliment house in Canberra LOL(thats option e) by the way, in really small font - really hard to see). How much waste does the latest fast reactor technologies produce per day? Is it a small, medium, large reactor?

[cwjohn (Chris)]

That would be about 2000 metric tonnes of intermediate waste and 100 ton of high level waste globally. In the next 10 years the technology to recycle the intermediate waste will be developed. Best guess would be around 500-1000 metric tonnes globally over ten years. In other words several train loads.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

How much "hot" nuclear waste do you think you'd need to store, after 10 years of nuclear power plant production (assuming the lastest fast reactor technologies).

a) a small mountain
b) several train loads
c) volume equivalent to a household refrigerator
d) volume equivalent to a lunchbox

The answer is? (I enjoy seeing healthy discussions! )

Hard to tell because the super phoenix line of plants recycle a lot of the waste coming out of the conventional plants (and that was more than 15yrs ago so god knows what they do now). Given that the French government made a very lucrative business of storing a lot of nuclear waste from all over the world in Normandy next to "la hague" I'd say it doesn't take much room at all. Only transit and shipping the stuff around is a real potential risk.

[Peter Ward]

I was reliably informed by a woking nuclear engineer (no, he wasn't working in Oz) you could store the really hot waste in a space equivalent to a domestic refrigerator

....so the answer, according to him at least, is (c) (I'll also accept 42)

[Hagar (Doug)]

What does this all mean? You have a refrigerator that has the ability to kill half the world with one leak? What about all the low grade waste which is still very dangerous but doesn't require quite the containment protocols of the high grade waste.

Sounds like my wifes cooking.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Hagar

What does this all mean? ....

Sounds like my wifes cooking.

Well the conversation went along the lines of the "hot" stuff is the stuff that ionizes...and keeps on doing it for a few 100K years.

It can however be encased in Synthrock and dropped down a deep shaft....say a few 100k south of Tennant Creek...and shouldn't bother anyone for a *very* long time.

Low level stuff has a short half life, and becomes benign after a few hours to a few months. This is usually stored on site.

Funny you should mention cooking!

Do you have a grantie benchtop?

If you do, almost certainly it is radioactive.... (but only a little)

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

Peter,
I didn't know Woking had a nuclear plant. Just F1 types. Ineresting!
I'm pro-nuke. The more the merrier. St. Kilda is my favoured site.
Hiss-boo to coal and oil!

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

I am not entirely pro nuke but we need immediate action against coal at least. I can't wait till they develop fusion, similar but safer I believe.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by Waxing_Gibbous

Peter,
I didn't know Woking had a nuclear plant. Just F1 types. Ineresting!

Very ineresting indeed!

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

I am not advocating this a solution to the waste problem because I don't know enough about the results of doing such a thing and I feel it would probably be bad. What would happen if you tossed this waste into the sun

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

I am not advocating this a solution to the waste problem because I don't know enough about the results of doing such a thing and I feel it would probably be bad. What would happen if you tossed this waste into the sun

oohhh....way too dangerous to lift off with nuclear waste in the first place and expensive too. Rocket launchs do go wrong sometimes. Safer to dig deep and leave it there.

[mswhin63 (Malcolm)]

Fond this WIKI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste interesting it mentions the impact death rates on different power generation system in the opening paragraph.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

oohhh....way too dangerous to lift off with nuclear waste in the first place and expensive too. Rocket launchs do go wrong sometimes. Safer to dig deep and leave it there.

I hadn't even considered Liftoff OOPS but just for curiosity sake what would it do to the sun

[renormalised (Carl)]

Just as Peter said...anyone who has a granite benchtop in their kitchen has a very small number of neutrons and alpha particle bombarding them every day. Most of the rocks in the earth's crust contain varying amount of uranium and other radioactive substances. Granites especially. If you look at a granite thin section under a microscope, you'll notice that maybe some of the minerals that are present (usually biotite, zircon, some feldspars, some of the pyroxenes etc) have what looks like little burn marks in the crystals. Those burn marks (called radioactive halos and fission tracks) are caused by radioactive minerals that get embedded in their crystalline structure. They corrupt the surrounding crystal structure as the minerals grow around them.

As a matter of fact, each and every person on this planet receives more background radiation from natural radioactive decay of substances in the soils and rocks (and in the air as well) than what you would ever get from standing next to a working nuclear power plant. In actual fact, you get more from shaking hands with someone than from a power plant!!.

Every living thing is radioactive

[avandonk]

It really depends on what you call hot Peter. Why are reactor rods stored in water. You can see the Cherenkov radiation (the blue glow) in any bit of footage of reactor rods under storage.

To put all the really hot waste from a reactor in the one smalll place is asking for trouble.

Japans nuclear industry used unqualified workers for short shifts and for a short time for the really dangerous work of dissolving Uranium 235 Hexafluoride in nitric acid. These really ignorant workers were told to only dissolve small amounts at a time. They thought they could speed up the process by increasing the amounts they dissolved at the one time.

The major problem with scaling up the amount is the contents of the container go critical ie a run away thermonuclear reaction. This reaction stops after the massive amounts of radiation and heat are generated and the whole lot boils and disperses so stopping the reaction.

All the workers died and there was a massive cover up until it happened again.

If the waste is not a problem why did the Americans dig huge tunnels in the Yucca mountains and have never stored any radioactive waste there due to local concerns.

Bert

PS If they had nuclear reactors in JC's day 98% of the dangerous waste would still be here!

[Solanum]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Just as Peter said...anyone who has a granite benchtop in their kitchen has a very small number of neutrons and alpha particle bombarding them every day. Most of the rocks in the earth's crust contain varying amount of uranium and other radioactive substances. Granites especially. If you look at a granite thin section under a microscope, you'll notice that maybe some of the minerals that are present (usually biotite, zircon, some feldspars, some of the pyroxenes etc) have what looks like little burn marks in the crystals. Those burn marks (called radioactive halos and fission tracks) are caused by radioactive minerals that get embedded in their crystalline structure. They corrupt the surrounding crystal structure as the minerals grow around them.

As a matter of fact, each and every person on this planet receives more background radiation from natural radioactive decay of substances in the soils and rocks (and in the air as well) than what you would ever get from standing next to a working nuclear power plant. In actual fact, you get more from shaking hands with someone than from a power plant!!.

Every living thing is radioactive

Indeed, and that's not to mention radon gas coming out of those rocks in some areas either. There again, it may be only one hit from a high energy particle in the wrong place, be they from cosmic rays, granite, or standing next to a nuclear power station, and that's your terminal cancer started. Lucky the risk from a single particle is vanishingly small, but they do add up....

I think the risk isn't from a working nuclear plant, it's the leaks (gas, water, solids, whatever). I doubt there's a plant in the world that has never had a leak and it's not exactly information that plant owners or governments advertise. It's not been a problem in Australia, but it certainly has in the UK. There is a long history of nuclear leaks in the UK and not many of them were admitted at the time. In the 70's and 80's there would regularly be lumps of high risk material washing up on the beach near Sellafield (Windscale, whatever they were calling it before they finally shut it down), although that was a re-processing plant not a power plant. Still, those risks can be estimated and allowed for, but it all puts up the price and makes it less economic...

[avandonk]

Our DNA repair systems are quite capable of coping with a small load of natural environmental radiation. In fact we evolved with this as a part of our natural environment.

It is only when the ionizing radiation damages even just one cell or number of cells beyond the capability of the DNA repair systems do we suffer mutagenisis and then carcinogenesis. These mechanisms are not fully understood but the devastating incidence of many cancers are real.

Cancer is most probably a combination of all the assaults on our defence systems by not just radiation but man made chemicals that never existed in nature and what is worse the synergystic effects of all these chemicals is poorly understood. The effects in utero are where even parts per billion are having an effect.

I will stop now.

Bert

[marki]

While I understand the importance of using nuclear reactors to generate isotopes for medical and industrial purposes I do not support the wide use of nuclear fuels to provide energy to the masses. The technology to go renewable is already available at a cost. 2 or three years ago I watched a catalyst program which showcased research carried out by either ANU or Monash (cannot remember which?) in developing cost efficient photovoltaic cells. These clever chaps had managed to develop a process in which the cells could be produced at about 10 - 20% the cost of current versions. How? They made a cutting device that could slice waffers at 1/10th the thickness of anyone else. We all know it is not the thickness of the panel but the surface area that counts so they could produce ten waffers form the same amount of material used to make one. If these solar panels were used in conjunction with hydrogen fuel cells it would be possible to deliver all our energy needs based on currently available technology. We have large areas of uninhabited arid land with excellent exposure to the year round sun and the nett pollution is zero if the hydrogen, oxygen and water are kept in a closed system. Sure my power bill would go up but it would be better then paying a stupid carbon tax designed to fleece the masses or paying for a technology to replace coal which would only last 30 odd years and leave us and our descendants with a great big mess to clean up. Obviously we would need to use other renewable sources like wind, geothermal, hydro and wave technology but it is time we stopped looking for temporary solutions and just go the whole hog. We know where we need to be so lets get on with it.

Mark

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by avandonk

Our DNA repair systems are quite capable of coping with a small load of natural environmental radiation. In fact we evolved with this as a part of our natural environment.

Bert

No argument from me Bert.

I'm rather a fan of James Lovelock (Revenge of Gaia) who notes that in the low level waste ponds outside many (nuke power ) facilities, life in fact flourishes.

Apparently the birds/bugs/bees can't read the "danger radioactive" signs
and literally thrive.....as humanity leaves them alone in there.

Now this really surprised me!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-nuclear-waste

That said, high level waste...even just a fridge full...is a problem, but hardly insurmounatble, particularly in a very large, geologically stable continent like Australia.