Spent fuel rods are still radioactive. They no longer fission at a useful rate. Some of the uranium has been converted to fission daughters which are also radioactive (but can’t be used as fuel cuz they alpha or beta decay but won’t fission), but are more radioactive than the original uranium cuz they have shorter half-lives. But ultimately, if you’re going to argue level of toxicity, we’re talking about jumping from a 2000-foot cliff -v- a 2100-foot cliff.
What bothers me is that the anti-nuclear people are always shirking their responsibility to provide alternatives to that which they want to ban.
Yes, Nuclear has its dangers. But if we ban it, what should we replace it with? And no, acceptable answers are not, “Conservation, solar, and wind power” (the triple mantra of the eco movement). Solar and Wind cannot hope to cover the gap, and neither can conservation. Many communities are already in danger of local brownouts and power rationing. The problem is getting worse.
So, instead of just saying, “Ban Nukes!”, you should be providing your comprehensive plan to meet our energy needs without nuclear power. Is it acceptable to replace nuclear power plants with coal fired plants? Gas Turbines? Hydro power? Give us the details.
In the meantime, nuclear power has proven itself to be the safest power source we’ve ever known. Hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of people have died as a result of coal power. Hydro power has also killed tens of thousands (the dam burst in China, construction accidents on major dams in the U.S., flood-related deaths when safety valves are opened after major storms). Even solar power would kill more people than nuclear has - extrapolations of deaths from rooftop falls shows that thousands of people would die every year if we put solar collectors on millions of rooftops.
So, what will it be? Unless you’re a luddite who thinks the answer is that we should all freeze in the dark, you need to provide alternatives when you propose to take away something on which we depend for our society.
jamshid: I’m not sure where you get the idea that a railgun would be a practical way of getting things off of the Earth. I’ve heard of plenty of talk of using electromagnetic catapults like you describe (not quite the same thing as a true railgun, but close enough) on the Moon or other airless worlds, but to launch through an atmosphere, you’re pretty much forced to go straight up, which would mean that your several miles of gun would need to be buried vertically-- Not a practical option. This is not to belittle the idea of disposing of waste in space, not the idea of cheap access to space. It’s just that from us Earthlings’ point of view, there’s better options than a mass driver.
Just to comment, but all the talk of salt mines is somewhat off. Yes, the site that is currently being excavated is in a salt bed - but a salt bed that’s several miles underground. When the place is filled and then sealed, eventually the chambers will compress as the ceiling lowers, until everything is destroyed by pressure and contained by the salt. This far down, it’s not going to get into the water supply, barring a super-meteor striking right at that spot and splitting the continent in two (in which case people have a hell of a lot worse things to deal with than released waste). Salt has the advantage, like lead and water, that it tends to absorb radiation very well.
Barring vitrification and disposal in a subduction zone, I think something like this might be the best alternative that is within our reach. Oh, and the containers that the stuff is to be buried in are positively ENORMOUS and unimaginably strong - with walls many feet thick with concrete, lead, and steel, shown to withstand directed explosives, let alone eco-terrorists or erosion. I imagine that the same containers would be used if the stuff was to be dumped in an undersea subduction zone.
As for the comment about Rhythmdvl about vitrification being unacceptable because of produced mercury and lead gases… heh heh heh heh. In a facility prepared for this, it wouldn’t be a problem, because the gases would be collected and allowed to cool back into a liquid or solid state - much like in a desalination plant, the vapor from the boiling water is collected and allowed to cool back into purified water. So no, I don’t see vitrification as a problem, and in fact view it as an ideal step in the process.
Sending the stuff off planet is never going to be an economically viable option. It’s not even ecologically viable because the pollution from chemical rockets, (or if you’re into the pseudo-science) the wastes and eco-damage of the power plants needed to provide the electricity to a mass driver, exceed the harm that would be done simply by dumping the stuff here on earth in an open air waste pit. Given that, I think extreme deep-burial, be it in a subduction fault undersea or in a stable salt bed, is a much more viable and responsible solution.
Why do we assume that radioactive waste must be disposed of in an inaccessible place? It seems to me that the responsible thing to do is to put high level waste in sealed containres, store the containers in large simple buildings, and make sure the buildings and containers are well maintained properly. Maintain them as long as our civilization lasts. That way you know exactly where they are, and if they by any chance leak out, you’d know it immediately. And if future generations find a use for it, it’s easily accessible. It may be a problem when there is no longer anyone around to maintain them, but do we really need to worry about that? Who’s to say that radioactive material is necessarily evil on the post-human-race Earth?
As for low-level waste, if you dilute it enough (say, shredded and mixed with regular garbage), can you lower the concentration enough so that it is no longer considered a radioactive waste?
Overall, you have a good point, but I’d just note that vitrification is not a silver bullet cure. Although it is a great way to immobilize and isolate toxic wastes, glass is not invulnerable to thousands of years of weathering. At least, there are no long-term data to support that it would last long enough. A central storage facility that can be maintained is a possibility. But NIMBY philosophies will prevent the mixing of wastes back into the soil, even at safe concentrations. The idea that “dilution is the solution to pollution” is not receiving public or regulatory support.
Going out on a limb here, is there any credence in destroying radioactive waste on an atomic scale? I once heard the idea floated that, if we can improve our understanding of Quantum Mechanics, we may be able to shorten the half-life of some of the more persistent isotopes. Wishful thinking or a possibility?
Oh, we have the technology right now to reduce half-lifes, by doing things like bombarding it with neutrons or high-energy gammas. The problem (aside from practicality of doing this on a large enough scale) is that shorter half-life materials are more dangerous… Every atom of a radioactive substance will eventually decay, and a shorter half-life just means that there’s more going off at once. If you take something with a 100,000 year half-life, and turn it into something with a 1,000 year half-life, you still have to keep it safe for a long time, but now the stuff you’re trying to isolate is a hundred times more potent. Ideally, what we’d want to do is increase the halflife, so we’d end up with something like, say, U-238 (four and a half gigayears). It takes a long time to see a significant reduction in radioactivity, but it starts off stable enough that you don’t need to worry about it in the first place. Unfortunately, turning waste into U-238 would take more energy than we got out of the fuel in the first place.
Gosh, I really like the railgun idea…
But I fear that it’s such a nifty toy we wouldn’t stop with just hazardous waste , we’d want to play with lots of things…(ever see the episode of malcolm in the middle where they rent the wood chipper?)
I can just hear it now…Two engineers talking to each other after a successful shot: “Boy, that was great! What else can we shoot off into deep space?” Cow: “MOO-Ooooooooooo…”
…Aaand there is the problem of a misfire potentially blanketing the globe in hamburger -er, I mean toxic particles- all accidental-like…
I don’t have the data on just how toxic the high-grade waste is, but it’s supposedly lethal in the parts-per-trillion range, so that’s pretty toxic. But, just so no-one feels really bad, I think mixing it back into the soil would be an excellent idea – as for sites, we could recruit backyards on a volunteer basis. Only people who are SURE it isn’t harmful and are willing to stake their health on it get the contract… but they have to live on-site to maintain it, of course. With their children.
That way, radioactive waste is a benefit to humanity… as a selective factor. We need more of them.
You could lay your railgun on the side of Mt. Everest, or even better the biggest equatorial mountain in the Andes. You’d be reducing the amount of atmosphere you’d have to go through, and you wouldn’t have to dig.
Poor engineers. They can unmix it from the dirt OK. That’s like unmixing a cake! I’m sure reversing the process can’t be that hard. Although I live near the Big Dig – don’t rebury it here!
Atomizing it out the the back of an airplane is still the best solution.
I’m with the vitrification crowd. Glass is very stable. It can be shot down a salt mine and sealed off, doubtless individual fragments will be sealed in lead cases just in case. BTW, would glass made from high-level wase be clear? Once our descendants decide to see what we shot into the Earth, perhaps they’d have use for leaded glass. Probably not. Just a random thought. Anyway, I also like the idea of a rail gun. As has been said, chemical rockets aren’t efficient or clean, so rail guns may well propel satellites into orbit or probes into deep space, depending on how much power we pump into them. I think nuclear power is a viable option, but I’m more excited about fusion instead of fission. If Tokamak pans out, perhaps we’ll be wondering what to do with all that helium. On that (higher) note, fuel cells look pretty good, but perhaps not for the large-scale rail guns would need. I just like any power source that throws off pure water as waste.
Jmullaney sez:
“I live near the Big Dig – don’t rebury it here!”,
then goes on to say,
“Atomizing it out the the back of an airplane is still the best solution…”
Now, JM, that’s just the sort of unhelpful attitude that’s bogging down the whole process of nuclear waste management. What, pray tell, is the difference between covering the earth in a few microns of radioactive material, and just irradiating your little piece of it? It’ll have the same deleterious effect (on you, anyway). 
I see it as sort of a reverse NIMBYism: “Share the wealth! I don’t wanna keep it just in my gene pool! Irradiate everyone equally, and we’ll all mutate together!”
While we’re on the subject of the ridiculous, how about marketing it as a breakfast cereal?
“New Toxic Crunchies! They don’t just stay crispy in milk: they boil it away! Yes, it’s the Cereal that Glows when you eat it! It’s bursting with Gamma-Ray Goodness!”
Quoth Derleth:
Fuel cells aren’t an energy source, they’re an energy storage medium-- It takes more energy to make them than we can get out. I’m not sure what exactly goes into making them, but I suspect that there’s some non-water pollution involved in the process.
Fusion is, indeed, promising: Plentiful fuel and no toxic waste products. The Russians may, in fact, get it to work, but rest assured that nobody else will. The best bet for it in America, the Stanford Linear Accelrator, was shut down for lack of funding, and the money diverted to the National Ignition Facility, while meanwhile, the NIF has been a sink for all of the money that’s been thrown into it. Months ago, the director was discovered to have completely lied about his credentials, and didn’t have any college degree, much less the Ph.D. he claimed, and it’s only gotten worse since.
Sorry, I’ve been away for a day.
Chronos’ quote:
“jamshid: I’m not sure where you get the idea that a railgun would be a practical way of getting things off of the Earth. I’ve heard of plenty of talk of using electromagnetic catapults like you describe (not quite the same thing as a true railgun, but close enough) on the Moon or other airless worlds, but to launch through an atmosphere, you’re pretty much forced to go straight up, which would mean that your several miles of gun would need to be buried vertically-- Not a practical option. This is not to belittle the idea of disposing of waste in space, not the idea of cheap access to space. It’s just that from us Earthlings’ point of view, there’s better options than a mass driver.”
Actually, the railgun would need to be several miles long, probably. Put it in Nevada, near the testing grounds at Los Alamos. It would need to have a gentle upward curve. At the business end, the payload would need to be traveling just above escape velocity. This is hardly impractical.
Lance Turbo’s follow-up to that (thanks for the support, Lance!) is, unfortunately, unworkable. You need to put the thing in a place that trucks or railways can reach. For that reason, Everest or the Andes are right out. Put it in the US, where the effects of failure loom large.
Finally, RE: vitrification, sinking, burying–all interesting ideas, but they completely ignore the long-term results.
Yes, a railgun may be god-awful expensive and ugly. But–and here’s the crucial point–it solves the problem permanently.
Why don’t we USE radioactive waste for something? The really hot stuff (spent fuel rods) could be used to generate hot water for commercial laundries, etc.The long-lived elements (plutonium, neptunium) can be put back into breeder reactors and “burnt up”.
There are a host of potential applications for this material, if we don’t cloud our judgement with al;l the anti-nuke nonsense!
egkelly, it’s not that I think nuclear waste is useless. Of course it isn’t useless. I’m sure there are half a dozen ways that it could be used right now in the modern age – practically, safely, and effectively.
My problem is with people.
Who do you trust to handle radioactive material responsibly? You must admit, even the most right-thinking, honest, responsible individual can make a simple math error (like the one that lost us the Mars probe) that could lead to catastrophic results. Worse yet, there is potential for intentional abuse. As a general rule, Industries tend not to care about those who live downstream: it is now standard policy to weigh cleanup costs against possible fines a/or court settlements, even though the untreated pollution may kill the inhabitants. Past and current espionage cases prove time and again that Government agencies are only as reliable as the people who staff them. And even on the individual scale, unethical individuals tend to count the cash first and ask questions later (if ever).
My point is, people in general tend not to care about the long-term effects of their actions. And carelessness in the handling of radioactive toxins could literally spoil the planet (or at least render large chunks of it useless to mankind).
So, given that nuclear waste is reusable, who do we trust to use it responsibly?
Personally, I don’t think I’d even trust me, and I’m the most responsible person I know.
Have you given any thought as to how many launches it would take with the rail gun to rid ourselves of all of the waste?
The rail gun would not have to accelerate the waste to escape velocity. Don’t forget, we’re firing this stuf at the sun. Escape velocity will put an object an infinite distance from the Earth. We only need to put the object far enough that the sun exerts more gravitational pull on it than the Earth. I calculate this speed to be about 1.8km/s as opposed to the 11.3km/s escape velocity. That’s a big difference. Of course, my calculation is probably way off. Chronos, get your butt over here and correct me.
Also, I still think putting the rail gun on the side of a big ass mountain is a great idea. Just find a big mountain that has a road near it.
The rail gun is passe’. Besides, what happens if there is a glitch and we throw nuclear waste all over Atlanta?
The plan is to going to store the waste in salt mines until we screw the rest of the secrets of anti-gravity from the aliens we have at Area51. Then we are going to simply shuttle it, using our new technology, to the vicinity of Venus and sling it into the sun.
Who cares anyway? Global warming and earth-crossing asteroids will be solving the problem for us pretty soon anyway, or so the news tells tell me.
Unfortunately, Lance, it’s not that simple. If you just fire the stuff straight at the Sun, you’ll end up with it in orbit-- Remember, it starts off with angular momentum. Note that this orbit would exactly intersect that of the Earth. If you want it to actually hit the Sun, what you’ve got to do is fire it at the Earth’s orbital speed, straight back; that speed being 29.7 km/s. On the other hand, if you want it to go off into the void, you need the Sun’s escape speed, which, at this distance, is 42.1 km/s. However, we can use the Earth’s orbital velocity for some of that, so we only have to supply 12.3 km/s with our railgun, if we shoot it straight forward-- This is the minimum velocity at which we can guarantee that it’ll never hit the Earth.
Of course, this still isn’t the whole story-- Unfortunately, we’ve got this thick soup of an atmosphere. I’m not up on my fluid dynamics, and modelling the air resistance at 12 km/s would be a nightmare anyway, but the atmosphere pretty much forces us to launch straight up, or as close to it as practical, to minimize the amount of air we’ve got to penetrate.