View Full Version : So what does happen to nuclear waste?
ywindythesecond
20-Apr-10, 19:24
In post #37 in the Forss Wind Turbine thread Scout posted this in response to Bekisman
QUOTE "So were will the French be dumping there waste then if they like it so much.Another challange for nucear power is dealing with the left over, highly radioactive and long lived nuclear waste. It is necessary to isolate the waste from humans and evironment for about 100,000 years before it decays to safe levels. The consensus amongst the Nuclear Power industry is that radioactive waste should be isolated by multiple barriers and placed deep underground. However other strategies involving waste transmutation are being investigated. And you say there is nothing to worry about :roll: "
Like many people in Caithness I have a little knowledge of the matter - more than enough to reassure me of the safety of the industry - and of the available existing knowledge and expertise, which is overshadowed by political funk, media hype, and widespread misinformation.
I do not have the knowledge or experience to put Scout's mind at rest, so could some of you "Atomics" out there please help?
oldchemist
20-Apr-10, 19:32
One of the many advantages of nuclear over fossil is that the small quantity of waste will be contained and it will decay away in time. The fossil industry on the other hand, since day one, has just pumped its waste into the atmosphere and that is why we find ourselves on the brink of a world-wide climate catastrophe.
One of the many advantages of nuclear over fossil is that the small quantity of waste will be contained and it will decay away in time. The fossil industry on the other hand, since day one, has just pumped its waste into the atmosphere and that is why we find ourselves on the brink of a world-wide climate catastrophe.
A bit of an ambiguous reply.
You state a "small quantity" of waste.
How much waste, in say tons, over the course of a year would be left over if the whole of the UK was nuclear powered
redeyedtreefrog
20-Apr-10, 20:55
A bit of an ambiguous reply.
You state a "small quantity" of waste.
How much waste, in say tons, over the course of a year would be left over if the whole of the UK was nuclear powered
I'm not sure, but I think I heard that if one used only nuclear-generated electricity for every electrical need, including driving, for one's whole lifetime, then the waste would be about enough to fit under a small desk.
DeHaviLand
20-Apr-10, 21:02
We produce 16000 cubic metres of radioactive waste annually. About 1% is high level waste. Wouldnt recommend hiding it under your desk!
I don't know the figures and I suppose you can't know at the moment because we are not generating at anything like the levels we need to. There are only 3 reactors still generating in Scotland and they are all scheduled for decommissioning in the not too distant future.
We are talking about pretty small volumes in the region of a few dozen tons in the lifetime of a power station. The volume area needed for safe disposal is much larger because of the containment vessels needed to contain the waste while it decays.
In terms of low-level waste, you have similar disposal needs as the NHS and other industrial users.
As newer, more efficient reactors come on line elsewhere in the UK, they will generate less and less waste.
Nuclear waste has a bad press but if you think about it (and barring the unforeseen) the waste just doesn't interact with the environment, unlike waste from fossil fuels.
[COLOR=black]In terms of low-level waste, you have similar disposal needs as the NHS and other industrial users.
So we could just pay some Italian company to dump that in the sea off the coast of Somalia as well then.
So we could just pay some Italian company to dump that in the sea off the coast of Somalia as well then.
We pay someone to do that? We could just do it ourselves.
Cant we just launch it into space and dump it on Mars ?
Or throw it into a volcano? :eek:
Volcano??
Are you mad!
With the way volcanos act it would blow up in your face!
Or give the whole of Europe another coating of contam (think chernobyl)
NapalmDeath74
20-Apr-10, 22:04
Or throw it into a volcano? :eek:
Just store it at Dounreay with the weapons grade material.:eek:
Volcano??
Are you mad!
With the way volcanos act it would blow up in your face!
Or give the whole of Europe another coating of contam (think chernobyl)
Some of the cleverest people were considered mad. ;)
But not me. [lol]
I saw (some time ago) on a tomorrows world program that they could put it in glass and it will stay there trapped regardless of how many pieces you break it into and they demonstrated it too or was that just television...
Angel...
In post #37 in the Forss Wind Turbine thread Scout posted this in response to Bekisman
QUOTE "So were will the French be dumping there waste then if they like it so much.Another challange for nucear power is dealing with the left over, highly radioactive and long lived nuclear waste. It is necessary to isolate the waste from humans and evironment for about 100,000 years before it decays to safe levels. The consensus amongst the Nuclear Power industry is that radioactive waste should be isolated by multiple barriers and placed deep underground. However other strategies involving waste transmutation are being investigated. And you say there is nothing to worry about :roll: "
Like many people in Caithness I have a little knowledge of the matter - more than enough to reassure me of the safety of the industry - and of the available existing knowledge and expertise, which is overshadowed by political funk, media hype, and widespread misinformation.
I do not have the knowledge or experience to put Scout's mind at rest, so could some of you "Atomics" out there please help?
Thank you for opening new thread on the subject I have asked you about. I understand were you are coming from I do not know much about power stations etc. However I am pointing out before you talk down wind farms tidal power and say only safe and cleaner way to produce power is from power stations. There is this big problem of waste and you can not sweep it under the carpet and say it does not matter. At least the other ways are cleaner wind, tidal, And who knows what other ideas may come up in the future.
sweep it under the carpet
Now that really isn't a responsible way to deal with nuclear waste :eek:
George Brims
21-Apr-10, 18:48
I saw (some time ago) on a tomorrows world program that they could put it in glass and it will stay there trapped regardless of how many pieces you break it into and they demonstrated it too or was that just television...
Angel...
There are two tactics like that, converting it to a glass and incorporating it in a sort of concrete material. In either case the idea is that if in future times people forget what that nasty stuff is, and leave the door of the vault open so the rain gets in, nothing much will dissolve in the rainwater and cause more widespread contamination.
There's still the issue of just where to bury that material. Dumping it in the sea off a Third World country doesn't seem a very nice thing to do. Dumping waste in the sea after cleaning out all the fish, then acting surprised when unemployed fishermen turn to piracy is a bit off too if you ask me.
There are two tactics like that, converting it to a glass and incorporating it in a sort of concrete material. In either case the idea is that if in future times people forget what that nasty stuff is, and leave the door of the vault open so the rain gets in, nothing much will dissolve in the rainwater and cause more widespread contamination.
There's still the issue of just where to bury that material. Dumping it in the sea off a Third World country doesn't seem a very nice thing to do. Dumping waste in the sea after cleaning out all the fish, then acting surprised when unemployed fishermen turn to piracy is a bit off too if you ask me.
Oh, I dunno, the Somalis seem to make a living from it.
Oh, I dunno, the Somalis seem to make a living from it.
Theras ever some sod with a great reply.:)
George Brims
21-Apr-10, 23:20
Unfortunately they are not making that much of a living from it, and it's complicated by the way they are organized (warlord factions running/ruining everything). Plus of course the wee problem of assorted navies turning up and stopping them. A mess all round.
Neil Howie
24-Apr-10, 21:00
This might be a good point (new energy systems/nuclear power) to mention Bill Gates funding small mini nuclear energy generation according to this report at the FT here (http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/03/24/bill-gates-nuclear-energy-baby/).
I don't think the science is behind it but it makes interesting reading.
Volcano??
Are you mad!
With the way volcanos act it would blow up in your face!
Or give the whole of Europe another coating of contam (think chernobyl)
Think Sellafield.
orkneycadian
19-Feb-11, 10:53
What are the views across the water on the proposed shipment of decommisioned steam generators through the firth? (http://www.scotsman.com/news/39Ban-radioactive-cargo-ship-from.6717096.jp?CommentPage=1&CommentPageLength=1000)
Personally, I cannot see what the fuss is about. If there are suggestions that the route is too dangerous and sensitive for hazardous cargo, then it should be closed completely to all hazardous cargo, of which oil tankers are the most prolific. Seems that its not of concern if half a dozen full laden oil tankers a day run aground on the Skerries, but is if just another cargo ship makes a passage through the firth!
Personnaly, I cannot see what the fuss is about. If there are suggestions that the route is too dangerous and sensitive for hazardous cargo, then it should be closed completely to all hazardous cargo, of which oil tankers are the most prolific.
Exactly.
But the anti-nuclear lobby ignore this fact and play on the ignorance and fears of the poulation.
Check my signature, I think it's quite valid here.
neilsermk1
19-Feb-11, 17:51
We produce 16000 cubic metres of radioactive waste annually. About 1% is high level waste. Wouldnt recommend hiding it under your desk!
Which works out at about 27 gramms per person in the UK.
Which works out at about 27 gramms per person in the UK.
Is that 0.952396 oz?
Which works out at about 27 gramms per person in the UK.
Roughly equal to a heaped tablespoon of flour.
Plus of course the wee problem of assorted navies turning up and stopping them.
Except ours.
This might be a good point (new energy systems/nuclear power) to mention Bill Gates funding small mini nuclear energy generation according to this report at the FT here (http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/03/24/bill-gates-nuclear-energy-baby/).
I don't think the science is behind it but it makes interesting reading.
I remember this being discussed about 10 years ago.
The plan, as I remember it, was to build small scale nuclear plants similar to those in submarines and aircraft carriers, and tow them on barges around the world to where they were to be used.
The idea was endorsed by the US government, who would supply the plants under licence. The plants would be towed away once burnt out and refueled/decommissioned back in America.
It was seen as a way of providing power to small, often poor nations, whilst maintaining control of the nuclear technology and so preventing its proliferation.
In terms of the science, I'm sure it's perfectly feasible, if not in terms of the politics or terrorist threat. I haven't heard anything about it since.
oldmarine
20-Feb-11, 00:01
I don't know where the UK stores all its nuclear waste, but I have read that the USA stores its nuclear waste at a location in the Nevada desert. I have learned that many places don't want nuclear waste stored anyplace near them. Can't blame them.
I remember this being discussed about 10 years ago.
The plan, as I remember it, was to build small scale nuclear plants similar to those in submarines and aircraft carriers, and tow them on barges around the world to where they were to be used.
The idea was endorsed by the US government, who would supply the plants under licence. The plants would be towed away once burnt out and refueled/decommissioned back in America.
It was seen as a way of providing power to small, often poor nations, whilst maintaining control of the nuclear technology and so preventing its proliferation.
In terms of the science, I'm sure it's perfectly feasible, if not in terms of the politics or terrorist threat. I haven't heard anything about it since.
Something along these lines theone?:
Since 2006, Sevmash, the main company of the Russian State Nuclear Shipbuilding Center, has been working to complete a floating nuclear power plant in northern Russia that will be launched in 2010 and moored in a nearby harbor.
Obviously 'something' is needed, no good relying on piffling windmills, nuclear is the way of the future.
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Russia_Will_Build_Floating_Nuclear_Power_Plants_99 9.html
Something along these lines theone?:
Yip, that's almost exactly the same idea.
However it was certainly an American, not a Russian plan I heard about at that time, and it was to supply power to 3rd world/poorer nations rather than domestic production.
EDIT:
Found some more on the Russian plants. Interesting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11381773
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.