0
jgoose71

Nuclear Power

Recommended Posts

With all the Talk about "recycling", "save the earth", and "dependence on foreign oil", why aren't we using More nuclear power? Why haven't we lifted the ban on recycling all the buried nuclear waste we have? Isn't it time for Jimmy Carter's legislation to be repealed?

Quote

Over the past four decades, America’s reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. That “waste” contains roughly enough energy to power every U.S. household for 12 years. And it’s just sitting there, piling up at power plant storage facilities. Talk about waste!

The sad thing is, the United States developed the technology to recapture that energy decades ago, then barred its commercial use in 1977. We have practiced a virtual moratorium ever since.



Even batterie technology is starting to come around where electric cars may even be viable and eventually affordable.

It just seems like a waste letting all that energy sit buried underground creating the next Godzilla.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318688,00.html
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

While I refuse to open and read the faux news link, what you wrote and quoted I agree 100%.
though not a renewable resource, it IS clean.



It's a real shame. There is some good info in the news story.

America already has 104 nuclear reactors, more than France. Yucca Mountain (our waste storage facility) already has 56,000 tons of waste and is rated to hold 70,000 tons. When fuel rods are considered "spent" only 5% of the uranium has been used. That is a lot of unused power we are just shoving under ground.

I don't even think the article is also taking into consideration the nuclear powered naval vessels we have and the nuclear weapons that get old and have to be taken out of the US inventory.

Seriously, does anyone know what the hold up is? Why aren't we using this stuff? Or is it just safer to have a "nuclear landfill?"
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Assuming modern systems and failsafes are used, really the only non-enviromentally conscious part of nuke energy (green energy, literal pun intended) is the waste fills needed for the spent 'fuel'.

there will always be some ignorant hippy flashing Chernobyl and Hiroshima victim pictures. ( Part of the problem. )

The Chernobyl AND Three Mile Island accidents were very terrifying events, of course, but at least 3mile was exponentially overplayed. and the final results of the Chernobyl accident were not nearly as bad as was reported or feared. Evac of that many innocent civilians was terrible, BUT that is what you get with the kind of internal competitive
government used at that time.

-SPACE-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a pretty bad article. One thing it states:

"To create power, reactor fuel must contain 3-5 percent burnable uranium. Once the burnable uranium falls below that level, the fuel must be replaced. But this “spent” fuel generally retains about 95 percent of the uranium it started with, and that uranium can be recycled."

Enrichment starts out at around 3.5% and when the fuel is spent that number is down to around 2%. In other words, about half of the U-235 (the 'useful' stuff) has been burned. The 95% they are talking about above is U-238 which is not usable in a LWR, whether at the beginning or the end of a cycle.


>Why haven't we lifted the ban on recycling all the buried nuclear waste we have?

Several reasons:

1) It is very, very hard to handle. It's got dozens of exotic isotopes from all the transmutation that happens within the fuel element during the nuclear reaction. It's many orders of magnitude harder to handle spent fuel during reprocessing than raw uranium.

2) If you can separate the isotopes and change their concentrations (i.e. re-enrich them) you can make the fissiles for nuclear bomb cores. Spent fuel contains significant amounts of plutonium, for example, which is used far more often for nuclear cores than uranium is.

Not to say it can't be done, but it would be difficult and would add proliferation risk.

Another alternative is MOX fuel, in which spent LEU fuel is mixed with degraded weapons-grade plutonium and re-burned. There's a lot of degraded plutonium around, and this is a reasonably good way to get rid of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


The Chernobyl AND Three Mile Island accidents were very terrifying events, of course, but at least 3mile was exponentially overplayed. and the final results of the Chernobyl accident were not nearly as bad as was reported or feared. Evac of that many innocent civilians was terrible, BUT that is what you get with the kind of internal competitive
government used at that time.



Uh, when people say things like 'Chernobyl wasn't really that bad,' they no longer sound credible in saying that 3 mile island was oversold. If we're going to ramp up nuclear use again, we can't consider the Russian event acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>the final results of the Chernobyl accident were not nearly as bad as
>was reported or feared.

?? A nuclear reactor exploded and burned; fuel elements shot into the air and were scattered for miles. The first fire crews there had to walk over fuel elements and chunks of graphite moderator. Radiation levels were fatal almost instantly; plant workers received fatal doses within a few minutes.

The remainder of the core melted down completely and formed a lava that made its way several meters underground. That could have been much worse - the lava was melting its way down to the basement, where broken coolant pipes had filled the area with water. Volunteers in diving suits swam through the radioactive coolant to release the water, so that a steam explosion would not occur when the lava hit the water.

All in all there were 56 deaths from direct exposure to the accident, around 1500 received near-fatal doses of radiation and got very sick, and 600,000 were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. A city was evacuated. In the area just downwind of the plant (the red forest) every living thing was killed. Nowadays they have to build ever-larger containment buildings around the reactor to prevent contamination.

That's all pretty bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>the final results of the Chernobyl accident were not nearly as bad as
>was reported or feared.

?? A nuclear reactor exploded and burned; fuel elements shot into the air and were scattered for miles. The first fire crews there had to walk over fuel elements and chunks of graphite moderator. Radiation levels were fatal almost instantly; plant workers received fatal doses within a few minutes.

The remainder of the core melted down completely and formed a lava that made its way several meters underground. That could have been much worse - the lava was melting its way down to the basement, where broken coolant pipes had filled the area with water. Volunteers in diving suits swam through the radioactive coolant to release the water, so that a steam explosion would not occur when the lava hit the water.

All in all there were 56 deaths from direct exposure to the accident, around 1500 received near-fatal doses of radiation and got very sick, and 600,000 were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. A city was evacuated. In the area just downwind of the plant (the red forest) every living thing was killed. Nowadays they have to build ever-larger containment buildings around the reactor to prevent contamination.

That's all pretty bad.



pretty bad? that is TERRIBLE.
Acceptable? never.
600,000 people were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, yes, but the final number actually affected by that radiation is MUCH less.

bottom line for Chernobyl, it was a terrible horrible accident and never should have happened.

Three Mile Island accident is a testament to the modern failsafes. minimal (alleged) leakage and current containment.
did you know that the Einsteins at Chernobyl continued to operate the plant until it became uneconomical even after the disaster?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>600,000 people were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation, yes, but
>the final number actually affected by that radiation is MUCH less.

It would be more accurate to say that they were all affected by the radiation they were exposed to, but for most of them the effects were not severe (depressed immune system, greater chance of getting some kinds of cancers, greater mutation rates in their children.)

As an example, children born to people who were exposed at Chernobyl have children with seven times the genetic mutation rate compared to the rest of the population. Since most genetic mutations don't do anything (i.e. take place on junk DNA or turn a diploid trait into a non-diploid trait) most of the children are OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



As an example, children born to people who were exposed at Chernobyl have children with seven times the genetic mutation rate compared to the rest of the population. Since most genetic mutations don't do anything (i.e. take place on junk DNA or turn a diploid trait into a non-diploid trait) most of the children are OK.


Nonetheless the number of children who are not OK is still seven times as high, or are you saying that the increase in mutation is biased towards the harmless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

the final results of the Chernobyl accident were not nearly as bad as was reported or feared...



Says who?

Take a look at this and try again...the pics and her rad counter tell the tale...
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

edit to add: I am a full supporter of nuclear power. The 100 plants in the US are supplying well under 50% of the power. We need to amp that up....pardon the pun...
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>the final results of the Chernobyl accident were not nearly as bad as
>was reported or feared.

?? A nuclear reactor exploded and burned; fuel elements shot into the air and were scattered for miles. The first fire crews there had to walk over fuel elements and chunks of graphite moderator. Radiation levels were fatal almost instantly; plant workers received fatal doses within a few minutes.

The remainder of the core melted down completely and formed a lava that made its way several meters underground. That could have been much worse - the lava was melting its way down to the basement, where broken coolant pipes had filled the area with water. Volunteers in diving suits swam through the radioactive coolant to release the water, so that a steam explosion would not occur when the lava hit the water.

All in all there were 56 deaths from direct exposure to the accident, around 1500 received near-fatal doses of radiation and got very sick, and 600,000 were exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. A city was evacuated. In the area just downwind of the plant (the red forest) every living thing was killed. Nowadays they have to build ever-larger containment buildings around the reactor to prevent contamination.

That's all pretty bad.



So... We have 2 examples of stuff gone wrong. Chernobyl and 3 mile island. Do you think those problems have been fixed?

Or do you think we should shut down the 441 nuclear power plants that are running right now putting out 386.5 GWe of power to the world? (386,500 megawatts or roughly 16% of the worlds energy, that would most likely be compensated for by burning fossil fuels)

Also, what is more dangerous, continuing to bury nuclear waste or recycle it? You've said yourself we can find a use for the exotic isotopes. I'm also pretty sure that bring down the the pure quantities that do need to be buried can't be all bad.

From what I understand, the only reason we are not recycling right now is because of proliferation fears, and not "because it's dangerous."

If we aren't recycling, I willing to bet it's because the oil companies lobbied against it (putting on my tin-foil hat):D
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>So... We have 2 examples of stuff gone wrong. Chernobyl and 3 mile
>island. Do you think those problems have been fixed?

For Chernobyl? No, the basic problem hasn't been fixed. RBMK reactors. however, are on their way out. There are 12 of those designs still operating, and we should consider shutting them down since they are inherently unsafe.

Three mile island? Most of those design issues have been fixed. The biggest issue was poor instrumentation, preventing the operators from having a clear view of what was going on. Training was also a big one, since they made three huge mistakes during the incident. Take away any one of those mistakes and nothing would have happened.

>Or do you think we should shut down the 441 nuclear power plants
>that are running right now putting out 386.5 GWe of power to the world?

I think we should shut down the most dangerous ones (RBMK's) and start replacing them with inherently safe designs like the GE AP1000.

>Also, what is more dangerous, continuing to bury nuclear waste or recycle it?

Recycling is definitely more dangerous than storage. (We don't bury the spent fuel now.) Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but handling that laundry list of isotopes takes a lot of time, care and planning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

The "kid of speed" thing was a hoax; the pictures were taken by a woman on a car tour of the safe areas, supervised by the government. But the radiation levels are real.



No shit?! So, her readings are real, if the story is not...

Love the pictures though...
So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


>Also, what is more dangerous, continuing to bury nuclear waste or recycle it?

Recycling is definitely more dangerous than storage. (We don't bury the spent fuel now.) Doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but handling that laundry list of isotopes takes a lot of time, care and planning.



Of course handling nuclear material is dangerous, but I do believe that the US has the know-how to do it safely. After all the French are doing it, how hard can it be? B|(despite being flippant about it, I do know what is involved)

Also, with 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the US, Yucca Mountain is starting to fill up. Unless we want to start creating other sites to store our waste, we need to recycle. Yes, it is radioactive material and can be dangerous to handle, but to me that is all the more reason not to let it collect.
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>Yucca Mountain is starting to fill up.

?? Yucca Mountain isn't open. There is no waste there at all.

> but to me that is all the more reason not to let it collect.

I think reprocessing is a great idea (provided it is managed very well) but I don't see it as that big a deal. When we run out of LEU, all that waste will still be sitting there, ready to be reprocessed. So if artificial forces will not accomplish this quickly, economic forces will drive it in the long run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Yucca Mountain is starting to fill up.

?? Yucca Mountain isn't open. There is no waste there at all.

> but to me that is all the more reason not to let it collect.

I think reprocessing is a great idea (provided it is managed very well) but I don't see it as that big a deal. When we run out of LEU, all that waste will still be sitting there, ready to be reprocessed. So if artificial forces will not accomplish this quickly, economic forces will drive it in the long run.



Correct me if I am wrong.. but didn't we use the Hanford PUREX 200W and 200E to reprocess the material. I think the reason was not for recyled fuel rods but was not quite what most people would like, it was for enriched weapons grade material but I am pretty sure they closed those as being very nasty with a lot of contamination to the groundwater and the surrounding area's with very high levels of LIL's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. Plutonium does not occur in nature; the only way to get it is via a nuclear reactor that makes plutonium. Reactors designed to make fissile materials are called breeder reactors.

Breeders were used for a long time to make plutonium for weapons. After the reaction, the fuel was pulled and reprocessed to extract the plutonium. They can also be used for power production, but are considerably more dangerous than conventional light water reactors. Their big advantage is that they do not need refueling with conventional nuclear material, ever. Some breeders run on raw (unenriched) uranium, and others can run on thorium, which is a common metal.

And yes, Hanford was an example of reprocessing done badly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

>Yucca Mountain is starting to fill up.

?? Yucca Mountain isn't open. There is no waste there at all.

> but to me that is all the more reason not to let it collect.

I think reprocessing is a great idea (provided it is managed very well) but I don't see it as that big a deal. When we run out of LEU, all that waste will still be sitting there, ready to be reprocessed. So if artificial forces will not accomplish this quickly, economic forces will drive it in the long run.



I think I missed something. Yucca mountain is no longer open? Where is all the waste going? All the LEU is sitting where?

Are we burying nuclear waste in random holes now?
"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think I missed something. Yucca mountain is no longer open? Where is all the waste going? All the LEU is sitting where?



Yucca Mountain never opened. It was zero'd out in the budget of the last year of Pres Bush's administration.



Quote

Are we burying nuclear waste in random holes now?



Pragmatically, we are likely to continue on-site storage.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> Yucca mountain is no longer open?

It never was. It's been a political football for the past 20 years, and has never gotten to the point where it started accepting waste.

>Where is all the waste going?

Most of it is stored in situ, either in spent-fuel pools at reactors or in dry cask storage nearby.

>Are we burying nuclear waste in random holes now?

Nope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

>Yucca Mountain is starting to fill up.

?? Yucca Mountain isn't open. There is no waste there at all.

> but to me that is all the more reason not to let it collect.

I think reprocessing is a great idea (provided it is managed very well) but I don't see it as that big a deal. When we run out of LEU, all that waste will still be sitting there, ready to be reprocessed. So if artificial forces will not accomplish this quickly, economic forces will drive it in the long run.



I think I missed something. Yucca mountain is no longer open? Where is all the waste going? All the LEU is sitting where?

Are we burying nuclear waste in random holes now?



Pretty much... almost every reactor site.. has on site storage until some repositry finally opens. Hanford has many TONS of the stuff... and they don't even know where the hell they buried a lot of it.

Its VERY impressive to go there and see the HUGE trench they dug out to bury the reactor sections that look like big 30'donuts sitting there in the bottom of the trench

Random Holes

The one thing about desert... if you dig it up.. or put a straight line there... you can see it for centuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0