Nuclear Waste?

[Guest]

. . . I've been contaminated a few times after handling irradiated fuel rods and it's pretty creepy, but it's not the end of the world. We wiped it off with some Kleenex.

Kleenex?

Is that 1-ply for alpha emitters and 2-ply for beta?

 

[DeeZire]

Thanks for the info, Dr. M. Info is very helpful in these discussions. Have you considered having a little sit-down with Al Gore?

Al Gore was interviewed on NPR today, in the context of green energy, but nuclear was never mentioned. I wonder why nuclear is not included in the green energy category? I realize concrete is a very energy-hogging material to manufacture, but you would think the cost of a state-of-the-art reactor would be amortized over time to offset the energy expending in building the facility. (Forgive me if this question was answered in his movie. I didn't watch it, because it didn't have an R rating, and I would have been bored, or at least boob-challenged.)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Thanks for the info, Dr. M. Info is very helpful in these discussions. Have you considered having a little sit-down with Al Gore?

Al Gore was interviewed on NPR today, in the context of green energy, but nuclear was never mentioned. I wonder why nuclear is not included in the green energy category? I realize concrete is a very energy-hogging material to manufacture, but you would think the cost of a state-of-the-art reactor would be amortized over time to offset the energy expending in building the facility. (Forgive me if this question was answered in his movie. I didn't watch it, because it didn't have an R rating, and I would have been bored, or at least boob-challenged.)

People are terrified of nuclear. That's probably why.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Kleenex?

Is that 1-ply for alpha emitters and 2-ply for beta?

These were alpha emitters. You don't screw around with beta emitters.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

A glorified steam engine? I never looked at it that way.

Palo Verde is about 100 miles from where I live in southern Arizona (which is a parched desert.) There was some local grumbling when it went in. We're depleting our underground aquifers at a rate of 3 or 4 feet per year, (Sustainable water use? In this day and age?) and the water situation was an issue. I wonder how much water Palo Verde uses? Compared to farming, it might not be much, but it is a factor.

The answer to you question is - "hardly any".

The water they heat is in a closed system. That water then heats other water in a semi-closed system to turn turbines. The water in the semi-closed system never comes into contact with the nuclear material and is deposited in a cooling pond for reuse.

These are land based plants. The navy may suck up sea water...remove the salt and use it then return the salt and water back to the ocean. You would have to ask JagFarlane about that.

 

[DeeZire]

Thanks Zeb. That's reassuring.

One more question: If vitrified waste is 100% safe, why must it be buried in a hole 3,000 feet deep? Is it a security issue? So that mischief-makers can't get ahold of it?

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Thanks Zeb. That's reassuring.

One more question: If vitrified waste is 100% safe, why must it be buried in a hole 3,000 feet deep? Is it a security issue? So that mischief-makers can't get ahold of it?

Yes. Safe but not without it's problems. It is still radioactive. The half life of nuclear waste, that's the time in which it will no longer be a danger to stand next too, is about...pulling a number out of my ass...two hundred fifty years? or should that be thousands of years?

Even thought it has been vitrified it could still be extracted by those who would want to use it for dastardly purposes.

 

[ishtat]

Sorry I noticed the link I posted previously was ineffective.

www.world-nuclear.org/info/info04.html

although Dr M has summed it up in fewer words. I can claim no great knowledge of nuclear engineering or the science behind it but I did have the advantage of living within 150 metres of a commercial power station's nuclear reactor for ten years. It was built on a farm in the west of England owned by my father. Completed in 1963 it operated until about 1989 when it was de commissioned.
My sister now has the farm and has lived next to the reactor for 50 years. During that time milk produced on the farm (Milk is particularly sensitive to radiation and she has 500 dairy cattle) has been tested 3 times a week since 1963 and never produced the remotest trace of radiation.

The so called nuclear debate is substantially driven by fear. Even now 19 years after de-commissioning started activity at the site is based more on politicians fear of public perceptions than scientific rationality.

 

[keeblercrumb]

"Rocket? Na... just glad to see ya!"

Sorry I noticed the link I posted previously was ineffective.

www.world-nuclear.org/info/info04.html

although Dr M has summed it up in fewer words. I can claim no great knowledge of nuclear engineering or the science behind it but I did have the advantage of living within 150 metres of a commercial power station's nuclear reactor for ten years. It was built on a farm in the west of England owned by my father. Completed in 1963 it operated until about 1989 when it was de commissioned.
My sister now has the farm and has lived next to the reactor for 50 years. During that time milk produced on the farm (Milk is particularly sensitive to radiation and she has 500 dairy cattle) has been tested 3 times a week since 1963 and never produced the remotest trace of radiation.

The so called nuclear debate is substantially driven by fear. Even now 19 years after de-commissioning started activity at the site is based more on politicians fear of public perceptions than scientific rationality.

Not exactly...lt remains a huge and incredibly expensive issue.... The UK has spent billions and continues to spend billions of pounds dealing with nuclear waste and de-commissioning nuclear plants of various kinds. Most of this work has been paid for by the MOD out of the public eye.... The "safety" issue is not bogus.... it is a very real, complicated and serious engineering problem; solving it has been the work BNFL for a hell of a long time...

The nuclear debate should be driven by fear. It is why the principle nuclear site in the UK changed names from Windscale to Sellafield... because of the infamous 1950's incident there was bad for publicity and the neighboring farm animals...

But here is another, much simpler argument against nuclear power and its by-products.. We cannot afford to get rid of the waste and plants we have now, let alone build new ones..... THAT is the legacy of nuclear power we will bequeath our future generations... Massive debt...

Nuclear power has never, does not now and will not anytime soon be self-supporting no matter what benefits it has for reducing greenhouse gasses..

We need to be investing in solar, thermal, wind and hydro electric technology development and NOT going down the nuclear trail again.

Of course.. that is just my opinion.

-KC

 

[DeeZire]

But here is another, much simpler argument against nuclear power and its by-products.. We cannot afford to get rid of the waste and plants we have now, let alone build new ones..... THAT is the legacy of nuclear power we will bequeath our future generations... Massive debt...

Nuclear power has never, does not now and will not anytime soon be self-supporting no matter what benefits it has for reducing greenhouse gasses..

We need to be investing in solar, thermal, wind and hydro electric technology development and NOT going down the nuclear trail again.

Of course.. that is just my opinion. -KC

Is your opinion based on the state-of-the-art technology mentioned in earlier posts, or past history? I would agree that alternative energy sources would be preferable, but we need to make sure we're basing our decisions on facts, not perception.

Regardless of whether or not we build new reactors, we still need to deal with the mess left behind by the old ones, which should be a separate issue.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

It's too bad you just can't pull all that power that is flung into the air...out to use as you see fit.

How many 50,000 watt radio stations are there in the US?

How much power does a radar dish pulse out into the air?

How much power is developed by microwave signals criss-crossing the country?

too bad we can't use all that power just floating around the ether.

 

[keeblercrumb]

"Rocket? Na... just glad to see ya!"

Is your opinion based on the state-of-the-art technology mentioned in earlier posts, or past history? I would agree that alternative energy sources would be preferable, but we need to make sure we're basing our decisions on facts, not perception.

Regardless of whether or not we build new reactors, we still need to deal with the mess left behind by the old ones, which should be a separate issue.

Good question..... the promise of "new technology" is always out there somewhere.....

There is no easy answer.... nuclear plants come in several flavors... each have their own problems and advantages.....

Most modern designs utilize "breeder" reactors but they require re-processing facilities... THESE facilities are the very same that produce weapons grade plutonium.... AND they ALL have fairly short life spans before the plants literally wear out... And then..... ??? What the hell do you do with them?

To be fair, we have already invested billions upon billions in these things so maybe we should reap the rewards.... but what to do with the plants and the nuclear material is still a profound question for which the only answers require further billions.... Bad money after good?

This is NOT a dead simple issue, no matter what I or anybody else says they are here.... I have pointed these issues out because everyone here seems to have suddenly discovered nuclear as some kind of a panacea...

Now that everyone seems to finally believe that greenhouse gas pollution is bad... AND the continued use and spread of fossil fuel energy will drive price up (the current price is without a doubt a speculative "bubble" based on fears of FUTURE demand, not current demand... .it WILL come down) making it further undesirable.... well we have to do something!

I personally do not look forward to seeing all the hills covered with wind mills and solar panels and more rivers damned, etc.... but these ARE hard choices... Nothing is free.... but nuclear, on balance, seems the least affordable......

Investment in solar and thermal as been miniscule compared to the past and continued government investment in nuclear power..... I just question these economics.....

Just so you know, I work in major project engineering and construction…. We LOVE nuclear power….. To paraphrase a famous movie line…. It smells like……. Money!

-KC

 

[Guest]

These were alpha emitters. You don't screw around with beta emitters.

I don't have enough knowledge about this.

I do know that gamma rays are the worst.

Poor Bruce Banner, anyway.

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b318/sweetsubsarahh/hulk.jpg

 

[DeeZire]

This is NOT a dead simple issue, no matter what I or anybody else says they are here.... I have pointed these issues out because everyone here seems to have suddenly discovered nuclear as some kind of a panacea...

I'm just trying to be a conscientious faux conservative, toeing the party line...

But seriously, the money issue shouldn't be the deciding factor, since saving the planet from a global warming catastrophe should not hinge on a cost benefit analysis. However, I suspect if the same amount of money was invested in alternative energy sources as has been pissed away on nuclear, we wouldn't need nuclear at all, and Al Gore would be retired, sipping lemonade under a solar-powered fan, instead of working up a sweat being a fan of solar power.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I really don't know anything about the large scale economics of all this. All I've been trying to do is de-terrorize some aspects of nuclear energy.

As for why the vitrified waste still has to be buried 2000 feet down, I suppose it's the same reason that you have to drive a stake through Dracula's heart AND cut his head off AND stuff his mouth full of garlic AND burn his coffin. Only then will the villagers feel safe.

 

[Edward Teach]

I really don't know anything about the large scale economics of all this. All I've been trying to do is de-terrorize some aspects of nuclear energy.

As for why the vitrified waste still has to be buried 2000 feet down, I suppose it's the same reason that you have to drive a stake through Dracula's heart AND cut his head off AND stuff his mouth full of garlic AND burn his coffin. Only then will the villagers feel safe.

Doc, I maintain that we don't need to know about the economics of these things, only that the oil companies don't want them.

I feel certain that there is more than enough knowledge, investment capital, political pull, etc. to get nuclear power plants built if the powers that be want them. Same goes for more efficient cars, houses, etc.

And god knows, there is enough talent in the advertising/marketing fields to convince us to accept alternate energy sources -- just look at all the government sponsored bull shit we buy every day.

I heard an oil company executive state in 1979 that the oil industry learned two things during the '73-'74 embargo that would forever change gasoline sales -- that Americans would pay over $1.00 per gallon for gasoline and that they would pump it themselves.

Crude oil prices fluctuated greatly over the years often dropping below the 1973 prices but gasoline never dropped below that $1.00 mark and it's almost impossible to find a station that will pump your gas for you.

They are testing the waters now, learning just what the optimal price for gasoline is and once they establish it, we will never see prices fall below that figure whether it be $3.00/ gal or $30.00/gal.

Edward the Skeptical

 

[Zeb_Carter]

That $1.00 a gallon depended on your location...I lived in Georgia after that and gas prices dipped way below $1.00 a gallon. They were $.68 in the seventies and still below $1.00 at $.78 in the mid to late nineties.

 

[Weird Harold]

But seriously, the money issue shouldn't be the deciding factor, since saving the planet from a global warming catastrophe should not hinge on a cost benefit analysis. However, I suspect if the same amount of money was invested in alternative energy sources as has been pissed away on nuclear, we wouldn't need nuclear at all,

Yes, saving the planet SHOULD hinge on cost benefit analyses. There is only so much money available to spend on alternative energy, so spending it on technology that will provide the greatest benefit is only good sense.

Whatever other alternatives might dominate the electrical power industry in the future, we will need some level of nuclear power generation simply because it is the best option for some locations. The only alternative technology that even comes close the 25/7/365 cabability of Nuclear is Geothermal, and that is very location sensitive and limited to the amount of geotherma energy that can be tapped.

Nuclear can generate massive amounts of power -- as much as you're willing to build into the plant -- on a very small physical footprint. The only technology that even comes close to matching that capability is Nuclear Fusion and that's a long, long, long way from being commercially viable.

Increasing capacilty for a solar plant means more acreage; increasing Wind capacity means more or bigger windmills; increasing Wave capacity means more or bigger wave generators; more Geothermal, hydro, etc mean more space required. Nuclear is the only viable non-fossil technology that is viable where space is at a premium because it can generate more KW/Acre than anything else.

Doc, I maintain that we don't need to know about the economics of these things, only that the oil companies don't want them.

I feel certain that there is more than enough knowledge, investment capital, political pull, etc. to get nuclear power plants built if the powers that be want them. Same goes for more efficient cars, houses, etc.

Yeah, we DO need to know about the economics of alternative energies. Nuclear does NOT make economic sense anywhere that some other alternative can meet the need for electricity; it is the most expensive alternative energy source. It's more expensive than it needs to be because of the knee-jerk opposition from hardcore environmentalists, but there is no way it will ever compete on simple economics with any viable alternative -- it's effectively "the alternative of last resort" in most US regions.

 

[DeeZire]

Increasing capacilty for a solar plant means more acreage;

You know, it's really hard trying to be a faux conservative when NPR is on the radio. According to todays installment of 'Science Fridays', it would take one plot of land 92 miles per side to power the whole country with solar. They already have a plot of land that size in Nevada waiting for the installation. What they don't have is the transmission capacity.

Divide that up into 92 one-square mile installations and you could plop them here and there all over the country. The oil and gas industry already has more acreage than that leased from the government, so finding the land would not be a problem.

However, in todays 'Science Friday' report, there was no mention of the 2 year wait for parts. (Liberal bias at NPR? OMG!) There was mention of a subsidy bill held up in the senate, the same type of subsidy that is already in place for the oil, gas, and coal industries. So, perhaps my conservative buddies will be able to hold off progress on solar for another year, which would make me really glad I chose to go down the faux conservative path.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

You know, it's really hard trying to be a faux conservative when NPR is on the radio. According to todays installment of 'Science Fridays', it would take one plot of land 92 miles per side to power the whole country with solar. They already have a plot of land that size in Nevada waiting for the installation. What they don't have is the transmission capacity.

Divide that up into 92 one-square mile installations and you could plop them here and there all over the country. The oil and gas industry already has more acreage than that leased from the government, so finding the land would not be a problem.

However, in todays 'Science Friday' report, there was no mention of the 2 year wait for parts. (Liberal bias at NPR? OMG!) There was mention of a subsidy bill held up in the senate, the same type of subsidy that is already in place for the oil, gas, and coal industries. So, perhaps my conservative buddies will be able to hold off progress on solar for another year, which would make me really glad I chose to go down the faux conservative path.

Not to mention that those 92 one mile square section would have to have a lot of sunlight the year round. So putting some of those in or around Seattle would be a mistake. The reason NV was chosen is it's abundant sunshine the year round.

I also think we should rent some land in the Sahara Desert and down in the Australian desert so we can collect the power from there when it's night here.

Oh damn, there's that pesky transmission problem again.

 

[DeeZire]

I can't believe nobody jumped in to pummel me on the 92 one-square-mile sections comment. A square 92 miles per side would equal 8,464 one-square-mile sections. (I give the solar-haters a gift, and they toss it away!) In spite of that little adjustment to the scenario, solar would still be doable. All you have to do is look out the window on your next flight to Vegas to realize how much open land is out there. And a good percentage of it is owned by federal and state governments (much to the chagrin of my conservative friends.)

Thank you, everyone, for contributing to this thread. I really like it when I learn something new here, as opposed to just learning new ways to insult people who think differently than I do.

 

[Weird Harold]

I can't believe nobody jumped in to pummel me on the 92 one-square-mile sections comment. A square 92 miles per side would equal 8,464 one-square-mile sections. (I give the solar-haters a gift, and they toss it away!) In spite of that little adjustment to the scenario, solar would still be doable. All you have to do is look out the window on your next flight to Vegas to realize how much open land is out there. And a good percentage of it is owned by federal and state governments (much to the chagrin of my conservative friends.)

Thank you, everyone, for contributing to this thread. I really like it when I learn something new here, as opposed to just learning new ways to insult people who think differently than I do.

All of that flat sunny desert you see from the air coming into McCarran Airport isn't all that flat -- although it IS sunny.

The 92x92 mile area covered with solar power is a theoretical installation -- according to the people making the claim, AUSRA; Roxxanne posted a link from an online draft of a book she's touting: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=27966043&postcount=24

http://www.ausra.com/ use flat mirrors to heat water to 285 ◦C and drive a steam turbine. The heated pressurized water can be stored in deep metal-lined caverns to allow power generation at night. Power density for a ‘240 MW(e)’ plant proposed for Australia [Mills and Li`evre, 2004]: the designers claim that 3.5 km2 of mirrors would deliver 1.2TWh(e); that’s 38W/m2 of mirror. To find the power per unit land area, we need to allow for the gaps between the mirrors. Ausra say they need a 92 mile by 92 mile square in the desert to supply all US electric power. Total US electricity is 3600TWh/y, so they are claiming a power density 19W/m2. http://www.aceee.org/conf/06modeling/azevado.pdf

The Solar advocates -- like me -- are just as llikely to hammer you for using that 92 x 92 figure as the opponents will because it's ludicrous proposal if taken literally. There is a similar theoretical figure of 100 x 100 miles in the Sahara (30 degrees closer to the equator) for powering all of western Europe. It is just as ludicrous if taken literally as mirror coating the Nevada desert.

 

[Edward Teach]

Yeah, we DO need to know about the economics of alternative energies. Nuclear does NOT make economic sense anywhere that some other alternative can meet the need for electricity; it is the most expensive alternative energy source. It's more expensive than it needs to be because of the knee-jerk opposition from hardcore environmentalists, but there is no way it will ever compete on simple economics with any viable alternative -- it's effectively "the alternative of last resort" in most US regions.

I was being a tiny bit facetious about not needing to know about the economics of energy, WH. However, I strongly suspect that the oil companies know ALL about them and will tell us what we need to know in due time.

Now if we can just get that Chevron tanker, Altair Voyager, renamed for someone with pull, maybe we can get all this energy stuff fixed.