From: Chuck Kuecker (ckuecker@ckent.org)
Date: Tue Feb 04 2003 - 19:37:26 MST
At 16:29 02/04/2003 +0100, you wrote:
>Chuck Kuecker schrieb:
>>The proper way to dispose of high-level waste is to irradiate it inside
>>the reactor vessel to promote it's decay to stable isotopes.
>
>Such a cycle would have to process the high-level waste as fast as it
>produces it. Have you calculated this? What about the medium and low
>active wastes? What about the machinery itself? How much of that do you
>get, how long will this be dangerous and what are the costs of its
>processing and disposal, including material, energy, personnel and space?
>I haven't seen any serious calculation that takes all this into account
>and comes up with a positive sum.
Argonne Labs here, had its IFR (Integral Fast Reactor) program almost ready
for a commercial scale test when our beloved Bill Clinton axed the program.
They ended up spending more to scrap the works than the budget to finish
the testing. The reactor essentially had a robotic recycling facility built
into the containment that separated the wastes from Pu and U fuel,
reinstalled the fuel in the reactor, and the wastes in a blanket around the
vessel. The design was such that it was fueled once, run for 30 or 40
years, then sealed in place for the low-level remaining wastes to decay -
say another 30 or 40 years, then decommissioned. I read on this list
recently about a similar system - can't grab the post right now.
>>but the glass itself needs to be stored away from inquisitive persons...
>
>... not only persons, but also natural forces like earth quakes, etc.
Which is why many of us here have been questioning the wisdom of "Yucca
Mountain", our high-level waste disposal site. Worse, Clinton planned to
put Pu from spent fuel in there, rather than burning it up in a mixed-oxide
system - even Pu from ex-Soviet warheads that we were buying up at the time.
>And can we assure that this technology, power plants and such, will always
>be properly maintained and in the hand of responsible persons? There're
>dozens of nuclear driven ships and subs of the FSU rotting in their
>habors. Many power stations are also rotten and only hold together with
>duct tape. Or what about a civil war in China, Japan, Africa or South
>America, e.g. Brazil? The "human factor" is an incalculable risk in this
>equation.
The "FSU" (good acronym!) has a multitude of sins to answer for - but I
believe that in a free market, power plants would be built responsibly and
run responsibly - because to do otherwise would ruin the profits. Only in a
micro-managed system like our NRC can slipshod systems get by here - it's
more "economical" to cheat knowing the bureaucracy won't catch up, and many
of the record-keeping requirements are truly Byzantine.
>>The only way to eliminate the heat load of technology on the surface of
>>the planet is to eliminate the technology - something that is dear to the
>>hearts of too many enviro-wackos out there.
>I'll think of fission power as a safe technology, as soon as someone shows
>me an effective method to stop radioactive decay or some device to bring
>tons of radioactive waste to a place _really_ outside our biosphere. Until
>then, the remaining risks are too high for my personal measure of safety.
>If that makes me an "enviro-wacko" in your eyes, I'll return this with a
>friendly "techno-loony" :-)
>
> Kai
Not a loony, simply a knowledgeable, concerned person who lives a whole lot
closer to Chernobyl than I do..
(I was upwind of TMI, too...)
Personally, I vote for nuclear until we can get workable orbiting solar up
and on the grids - then scrap all the old tech, except for a museum piece
or two. Even counting the FSU, nuclear has a better record of not killing
people than fossil fuel plants.
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 04 2003 - 19:41:23 MST