Wikipedia on the Mayak reprocessing plant:
Well, the Soviets are a clear example of how to do it wrong. We’re arguing that it can be done right.
The problem of nuclear waste is not trivial in and of itself, but it is trivial when compared to the very real risks that the status quo has us engaged in. Talking about Hanford or Chelyabinsk is only useful insofar as it points out what not to do. And anyway, just as a matter of general principle, we’d be unlikely to behave like the Soviet Union of the '70s and '80s, or America of the '50s. We’ve learned to do better. The U.S. airline industry is a great example of a system of high complexity that can be managed safely by absorbing all the lessons of the past.
Sam Stone cites a number of reasonable approaches to the waste problem, many of which have been done routinely for years. The idea that this is an insoluble or even particularly difficult problem is ludicrous.
And I will say again that the fixation on the comparatively minor dangers of nuclear waste while ignoring the dangers of the status quo is just the kind of thing that I’m complaining about in the OP.
Again, the scientists would disagree with your assessment of the difficulty of the problem (from the Materials Research Society, more recent than 2004):
http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=6834&DID=177705&action=detail
[/quote]
“The reliable prediction of container degradation rate and engineering barrier integrity over extended periods, up to several thousands years or even several hundreds of thousands of years, represents one of the greatest scientific and technical challenges.”
But the dangers of nuclear waste are not minor, even when comparing to dangers of status quo. Especially if the amount of nuclear waste and handling of that waste is increased by an order of magnitude.
FWIW, I’m pro-nuclear power, but I think the waste issue is not trivial and needs to be handled properly. Given that we don’t have any good permanent storage facilities (that I’m aware of), I don’t think we are there yet.
I’ve been surprised that, with the Republicans in control of both the legislative and executive branches of government for the past six years, companies that could build and run nuclear generators haven’t been charging ahead with the approval process. Are the Bushies so absolutely beholden to Big Oil that no other corporate giant can even gain access?
I agree that there needs to be some resolution to the waste issue, because once that is done, nuclear energy just makes sense. We thought there was promise in “breeder” reactors back in the 1970s, but for some reason that all but disappeared from view. Was the technology too expensive, or did it just not work?
What happened to the “ultimate” waste storage facility in the old salt mines of New Mexico (Arizona? Utah?) I thought millions of dollars was being poured into creating a failsafe waste storage facility; the biggest problem seemed to be signage that would be understandable thousands of years from now (assuming American English was no longer spoken.) I thought that had great promise – or am I just being gullible again?
BTW, I cut my reporting teeth at a small radio station in Kennewick, WA, and you would not believe the way we got spun by the AEC/GE/ARH cabal over in Richland. 'Course, that was back in the very early 1970s; as I said, breeder reactors were the future then. I spent dozens of hours reading up on the Fast Flux Test Facility and High Temperature Test Facility. We in the media were all ga-ga over the shiny new stuff being built at Hanford; only decades later would I realize that we were all being told, “Hey, look over here!” while the Richfield tanks leaked hundreds of thousands of gallons of radioactive crud into the sandhills of the Columbia River Valley. I still know some people in that area, and there are still folks (not in the nuclear industry, just locals up there) who deny that anything ever went truly wrong at Hanford. All I know is what I read in the papers …
:smack: Sorry, that’d be the High Temperature **Sodium ** Facility, which was built to test components for FFTF. Dagnabbit, this whole thread has caused me to waste a good half-hour of my boss’ time as I pulled up old Tri-City Herald articles about the decommissioning of the FFTF. Gad, was that REALLY 30 years ago?
In response to
and
It is my understanding that the “recycling” of spent fuel is tough because the material is less able to sustain a steady nuclear reaction (less fissionable) but is more radioactive, all in all, and the “recycling” (in a breeder reactor, I assume… tell me if I’m wrong) just makes it more radioactive.
I remember seeing something about how the inside of these storage places can reach VERY high temperatures (i.e. enough to turn the rock walls to a slightly soft material)… But can’t seem to find any info on this (would be interested in reading further if anyone comes across anything on it). Anyway, fissionable material is under the purity necessary for a chain reaction that could set off an explosion (I think it is around 4% for U238? Am I right? Whatever, its not important).
However, I think the worst that could happen is somehow it gets all close together and unprotected (crushed together after an earthquake eventually?) and then reaches a critical mass enough to get it to melt through rock… and bury itself deeper.
Well that was a ramble.
I just looked it up (very informative site, btw) and had detonation and fuel percentages mixed up… it is less than 1% raw in yellowcake, 4% for fuel, and 20-90% for weapons.
Except I’m not seeing any coherent arguments as to how to do it right - only glib pronouncements that the problem is trivial or already solved. It’s not already solved. Even setting aside the problem of where to store it all long-term, what exactly is the foolproof plan for getting the stuff to the storage facility without ever having an accident or having it blown up by terrorists? Not even close to solved.
And Canada. Our CANDU reactors provide a good chunk of our electricity - especially in Ontario. The only nuclear incidents we’ve had date back to Chalk River in the 1950’s, when nuclear power was still in its infancy - an incident which caused no environmental damage and no injuries. France has never had an incident with any of its nuclear reactors.
‘Trivial’ in comparison with the problem of Global Warming. And even if the waste problem led to contamination somewhere, none of it would be threatening to the population of earth as a whole.
Most of the problems of waste disposal are political, not technological. Frankly, I think that demanding containers that will stay sealed for tens or hundreds of thousands of years is ridiculous. I’d be happy if we could contain the the stuff for a couple of hundred years, because by then we’ll either have technology so advanced that we can deal with the waste again, or we’ll have damaged ourself to the point where the the waste issue might just be a matter of relocating people elsewhere. To me, the requirement that a storage area remain stable for hundreds of thousands of years and canisters be sealed for tens or hundreds of thousands of years is just a way of throwing up requirements that are almost impossible to meet so that politicians have excuses for opposing storage and transportation of waste in their districts.
It’s no surprise that the Soviets totally mismanaged their nuclear industry. Since we don’t operate the same way, their experience is nothing more than a cautionary tale about what not to do - which we already knew.
Here’s a list of civilian nuclear incidents since we started using nuclear power. The surprising thing is how few of them there are, and how almost none of them resulted in any significant damage to people or the environment (Chernobyl a big exception).
Compare that to the people who have been killed in other industrial accidents - black lung from coal mining, dams that have collapsed, explosions in chemical factories, releases of toxic chemicals in places like Bhopal India, etc. Compare the risk to the number of deaths each year from emphysema due to other pollutants. Hell, even compare the amount of radiation released with the amount released from coal plants.
The amazing thing about the nuclear power industry, outside the Soviet Union, is how incredibly safe it has proven itself to be.
The two of you would seem to be making the exact opposite argument.
I think if words like “foolproof” and “ever/never” are used in the criteria for transportation of nuclear waste, none of it will ever be moved. I think a lot can be done to mitigate the dangers, but it’s just not reasonable to try to forsee every possible act of sabatoge or stupidity and prepare for it.
Hence the problem.
So … here we sit, doing nothing because we can’t be perfect? There are a lot of affordable things we can do to mitigate most of the danger of moving spent reactor fuel. I say we do them and move ahead, constantly looking for ways to make it safer. That’s what we do with every other toxic material that has to be moved.
And that’s the key issue. Opponents of nuclear energy are not rationally thinking about it because they refuse to accept any problems, ever. I can prove that it will be far safer, statistically, than any system we can alternatively devise and use practically. But that is not sufficient. Anti-nukers demand that the system never fail, ever, under any circumstances. No system does that.
By the by, when nuclear powr advocates say that the issue of waste and transport is trivial, they mean it. There are no technological issues to be solved, and the engineering issues are trivial. Even the social and economic aspects are trivial - we’re talking about doing what has already been done many times in other systems. The problem is political.
Waste is a trivial issue. It can be cleaned up and stored safely, in various ways. We know this for a fact, not an opinion. You’ve just been told several potential ways how. We know how each one works. Many places have nuclear poewr on a large scale for some time without horrendous catastrophes occuring.
This is the root of the problem. I intend no insult, but this is an expression of very foolish emotion, not reason. Radiation is everywhere, and it isn’t some supernatural evil force. It has measurable effects, can be controlled, and can be put into areas and forms which do little harm. Crying “Radiation” is no more rational than crying “Nazi!” or “Demon Rum!” It shouldn’t invoke terror.
Look at this way: do you care that the cancer killing you comes from radioactive waste or heavy metals or air pollution? Probably not. If you could reduce one of those dangers tremendously at the cost of increasing another slightly, wouldn’t it be worth it?
It’ll never be solved to the standard you’re demanding, though. Applying a realistic standard (i.e. we’re 99.999% certain that the Yucca facility will be fine for 500 years) is the best we’re going to get, and compared to the alternatives of just burning more coal and oil, is a better choice.
Besides, what do you think is really going to happen if a Yucca container breaks open? Instant death for everyone in a ten-mile radius? Zombies? An elevated cancer risk? I realize I’m starting from the absurd, let me know when I get close. A higher rate of birth defects among the workers? Increased incidence of cataracts and tumours? Burns and transient illnesses?
By saying that opponents are not thinking rationally you are weakening your position. It can be factually shown that there have been past problems and that the problems of future long term storage of nuclear waste are not solved. Therefore, it is rational to factor in those concerns when deciding on a course of action.
I would be interested in seeing your proof, primarily because I would be interested in seeing what assumptions you are making and how you factor in unknowns related to the storage/handling of the waste.
Please update these scientists because they are clearly wasting their time and precious research dollars:
http://www.mrs.org/s_mrs/sec_subscribe.asp?CID=6834&DID=177705&action=detail
[/quote]
“The reliable prediction of container degradation rate and engineering barrier integrity over extended periods, up to several thousands years or even several hundreds of thousands of years, represents one of the greatest scientific and technical challenges.”
[QUOTE=RaftPeople]
By saying that opponents are not thinking rationally you are weakening your position. It can be factually shown that there have been past problems and that the problems of future long term storage of nuclear waste are not solved. Therefore, it is rational to factor in those concerns when deciding on a course of action.
[QUOTE]
Let me start saying that I am all pro-nuclear.
That said, my biggest concern about nuclear is that we could easily get hooked on it. What is going to happen to research on solar or what-have-you while we build hundreds of nuclear plants and energy costs go down?
Nuclear is a **great intermediate ** step. It is a good patch to cover a hole. Something to hang on to while we figure it out for real.
I would propose a stepped programs where we build as few current nuclear reactor in critical areas with energy crises. Meanwhile, we refine pebble bed reactors and start building them by the dozen all over the country until we have managed to eliminate fossil power generation. By this time, plug-in hybrids should be sufficiently present to make a serious dent in vehicular carbon output. All this should give us time to develop solar, geothermic, wind, tidal, whatever.
This minimizes the production of hot waste, and steps us out of carbon dependency in the shortest possible time. It also leaves the door open to renewables until they are ready for prime time.
The problem with this is that each step is in the hands of a different interest group that will do everything possible to prevent the transition to the next step. Politics, politics.