Good question. One reason is that the heat you get from this decay is Far Far smaller – orders of magnitude lower – than what you get from the intended reactor process. The thermodynamic efficiency of a process depends upon the difference between the temperature difference between your “hot” end and your cooling end, and increases dramatically with increasing difference. Low temperature heat just isn’t efficient enopugh to bother with. I suspect that if you built yourself a thermopile or something to try to capture some of the “soft” nuclear power from this decay, you wouldn’t get a lot (by power plant standards). Even so, you’d capture something that’s going to waste right now. Capturing that power, however, won’t do anything about the problem of waste disposal – it’ll just cycle the resulting heat differently.
I have heard that the most modern windmills with larger, slower-turning blades are way quieter than the earlier ones.
Most of that 5.972 x 10[sup]21[/sup] metric-tons of Earth is buried deep, deep underground.
If you find out a way to store our radioactive waste 100+ miles below the surface of the Earth, please let the Atomic Energy Commission know about it. 
There already exist plans for a type of nuclear reactor that can run on the waste plutonium of other nuclear reactors. It’s called a CANDU* reactor.
[sub]*) Perhaps because it has a real can-du attitude.[/sub]
Here’s the CANDU FAQ.
Some interesting information from the FAQ:
[ul]
[li]Candu Reactors can use multiple fuels, including plutonium recovered from nuclear bombs and spent fuel from other reactors. [/li][li]Candu reactors can process actinides without creating more actinides, meaning they can clean up waste from other plants. The waste from a CANDU reactor is about as radioactive as the original ore it came from within about 400 years.[/li][li]Candu reactors are highly efficient. According to the 1994 Annual Report of Ontario Hydro (now known as Ontario Power Generation Inc.), nuclear power in Ontario currently had a 35% cost advantage over fossil power (average energy costs of CDN$0.05/kWh for nuclear vs. CDN$0.07/kWh for fossil). And it gets even cheaper with higher utilization rates. According to the cost chart in the FAQ, at 80% utilization over its life a CANDU plant can make energy for a little over .03/kWh.[/li][li]It’s almost impossible for a CANDU reactor to melt down, because its coolant is also its moderator. If the coolant leaks out, the reactor shuts down automatically.[/li][li]CANDU reactors are particularly well suited for making hydrogen for a hydrogen economy, because the byproduct of hydrogen manufacture by electrolysis is heavy water, which is then used in the reactor. So the overall energy cycle cost for making hydrogen is lower than with other technologies.[/li][li]Canada gets 13% of its electrical power from nuclear reactors.[/li][/ul]
Let’s try some mathematics. How many tons of earth are within, say, 1 mile of the surface, where a deep mine could reach?
Earth’s Surface = 4 * pi * (4000)[sup]2[/sup] square miles. This number is also the volume of the land within a mile of the surface, expressed in cubic miles.
The volume of the earth is is 4/3 * pi * (4000)[sup]3[/sup] cubic miles
Dividing, we find that the earth’s entire volume is 4000/3 as much as the volume of the highest mile. Let’s divide by 3 to exclude the 2/3 of the earth covered by water. Then the weight of available earth would be 1/4000 of 5.972 x 10[sup]21[/sup] metric-tons, which is about 1.5 * 10[sup]18[/sup] metric-tons (if I haven’t slipped a decimal point.) That’s still an awful lot, as compared with 1600 metric tons of waste per year.
We could cut this figure in half, to assume that the radioactive waste is at least 1/2 mile below the ground, and it’s still an awful lot. It looks like a ratio of 10[sup]15[/sup] to one.
Plutonium isn’t exactly waste. Breeder reactors are made that way on purpose, and the plutonium is not the result of the fissio and decay of the U 35 – it comes from U-238 that is placed to absorb the emitted articles, and which does not itself contribute to the fission at all.
Your interpretation of “CANDU” is partially correct, although I Believe it stans for CANadian Something Something – CNDU is Canadan reactor. But I suppose the pun was irresistable.
I shouldn’t have said waste plutonium. I don’t know what’s wrong with me these days. A CANDU can burn spent uranium fuel from other reactors. AND it can burn plutonium recovered from nuclear weapons. It can also run in a near-breeder cycle. It’s a very versatile beast.
[Ignorant Alarmist]
But it’s, like, nuclear and shit, so it’s bad.
[/Ignorant Alarmist]
Yes, it’s bad for 250,000 years. Will kill you and anything else for 250,000 years. Gets in the groundwater and spreads. Bad, bad stuff. Causes cancer.
There are several 2 billion year old nuclear reactors in Africa, which formed from natural deposits. http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/oklo.htm Nothing lives there still.
Simply repeating that it is not dangerous because you don’t want it to be doesn’t make it so. There is no container that we can make that will come close to holding spent fuel for even a fraction of it’s half life, much less ten of them. Do not confuse spent fuel with the stuff being stored at Yucca mountain, which is far less dangerous than spent fuel: that stuff is only stuff that has been around spent fuel.
There is no place on the planet remote enought to store the spent fuel where it will not wreck havoc in populated places, and even the proponents of using this technology do not suggest that there is.
Names, please? The scientific consensus is that Yucca mountain is an adequately safe storage facility.
Drop nuclear waste in a subduction zone, and it’s gone forever.
Hell, just stack in the desert if you have to, and spend a lot of money taking care of it. It’s not like the magical nuclear fairies are going to come along and suddenly cause it all to pollute cities around the world. This is physics and engineering we’re talking about. The problem is manageable. And a hell of a lot more preferable than pumping pollutants into the air.
Makes one think that we should just dump all our waste there… like Mother Nature intended. Unfortunately, people are paranoid about transporting waste by train or overseas.
I’m often confused by anti-nuclear attitudes about waste storage. Why exactly are we tasked with finding a receptacle and convenient spot for said spent fuel for the entirety of it’s 250,000 year half-life? While not wanting to pass problems onto our children is certainly an admirable goal… I don’t think our children would mind a bit of upkeep, preventative mantainence or even the occasional move to a newer safer location as needs arise. Especially if it means the lights get to stay on and the polar caps stay frosty while they get to grow up in a reasonably energy rich society. Why not simply deal with the problem in a comprehensive and safe way for say… 200 years… design the facility to be ‘upgradable’ and modular… easy to modify or move in it’s entirety? I have read articles about proposals to do things like pump the waste into a subduction point… even fling it into the sun via a space elevator. My objection to proposals like that, as well as any ultra-secure irretrievable, designed to last 250,000 years sort of vault is that we have no idea what uses these heavy elements might have in the future. Heavy elements (the products of nuclear fission) are extremely scarce relatively speaking and might be an invaluable resource utilizing exotic technologies that might be available in the future. As often as not we find that the waste problems of the past are the resources of the future, just wait until we start strip mining old landfills for metals and plastics… if it hasn’t happened already.
See also Coal vs. Nuclear - a thread from 2 years ago.
Sparticus, I hope you were being sarcastic, because otherwise you’re just plain wrong.
You said:
Yucca says:
What kind of waste does CANDU itself create?
CANada Deuterium Uranum, according to the latest version of the CANDU FAQ. The CANDU reactor can indeed use uranium (or plutonium) of a “lower grade” than other reactors, which makes it ideal for taking up other reactors’ waste products. Its main downside is that it requires enormous quantities of heavy water (D[sub]2[/sub]O, dideuterium oxide). It uses the heavy water both as a moderator for the neutrons that come out of the fissile materials, and as the reactor coolant. Heavy water represents about 20% of the capital investment cost of building a working CANDU reactor.
I could not find, from reading that FAQ, what kind of waste material a typical CANDU reactor produces, and whether said waste is any less radioactive or hazardous than the waste produced by a conventional PWR or LWR fission reactor.
**jr8 **
Ok, they pollute less than fossil fuels, but they have other problems. Looking beyond the space requirements that they both have (and these are large requirements) the HUGE cost in maintaining them is prohibitive. Solar can only be used when the sun is up (obviously) which prohibits things like night-time energy production, production in areas with large amounts of cloud cover or essentially anything else that blocks the sun. All of this serves to limit its use except on the smallest of scales. Wind power has some of the same problems, huge tracts of land are required in areas that produce a constant source of wind. How many places does that occur you ask? Not many is the answer. While virtually everywhere gets some wind some of the time almost nowhere gets enough wind to make it economical. Replacement veins and bearings are expensive to boot. Then there is the possible damage to the environment. Have you ever seen what happens when the wind blows through a slotted fence? Anything that the wind is carrying is deposited on the downwind side of the fence. This is because the wind slows down allowing anything that it carries (dust, snow, water, etc.) to fall out. Now imagine if Colorado (mid-west USA) built extensive wind farms on its eastern boarder. There is a possibility that any rain meant for Nebraska would be deposited in Colorado instead – bad for Nebraska. Remember, this is only theory at this point but it is something that the experts in the field are concerned about.
december
I don’t know about Nevada, Arizona or California but I would suggest somewhere other than Wyoming. There weather here is a little messy for that kind of transport. To give an example, one of the few places in the US where large scale wind farms work is in Wyoming. Last time I drove north I counted 25 semi-trucks that had just been blown off the road due to a moderate wind 
Having said that, I agree with you – the problems surrounding nuclear waste disposal is politically driven. Did you know that there have been protests outside large medical facilities because the have an instrument called “Nuclear Magnetic Imaging”. The protests were so bad they finally changed the name to “Magnetic Resonance Imaging” or MRI. Makes me laugh in a sad, depressed sort of way.
** I am Sparticus**
So does chocolate but some reports. And judging by consumption, well still be producing chocolate in 250,000 years
You have got to be kidding me – you are comparing uncontrolled reactions underground to a controlled reaction in a power plant. <shrugs> Sure, why not – the sun uses nuclear energy and without it no life on this planet would be possible, therefore nuclear energy must be good. Doesn’t really work does it.
If you ask me, I think we should be throwing money into finding ways to make fusion work (like cut off subsidies for fossil fuels and send all the money into research). Hell, I’d even pay the increase in gas prices.
Another possibility, at least for automobiles, is ethanol. Denature the stuff, buy the $500 modification for the car and then drive happily without polluting.
$/kW-H
As long as oil is cheap, the energy industry has no strong incentive to get its nuclear act together.
One possibility for using nuclear waste: put it into a breeder reator, and turn it back into nuclear fule! This can be done with today’s technology.
Another proposal: fue the wasted into glass, and encasulate the waste. Transport to Antartica, and place the waste containers on the ice cap- the heat of decay will cause the waste to sink down to the bedrock in about 10,000 years.
Problem solve?
Well, the UK is planning on building lots of windfarms, and they’re doing it offshore. And believe me, the North Sea gets quite enough wind to do it. And are you going to tell me it costs more to maintain a wind farm than a nuclear plant, when you include waste transport and disposal?**
Wind farms can affect the weather? Really? Do you have a citation for that? I would be interested in seeing the research.
As for Nebraska, it gets most of its big weather systems from the southeast; the western half of the state is already much drier because (and I don’t know if you’ve noticed ;)) there’s already something in Colorado that blocks the weather systems from coming straight east. **
Sorry – weren’t you just saying something about places with not enough wind?**
Much in the same way your comments made me laugh, I imagine.
**
Tell you what. I’ll eat a pound of chocolate. You eat a pound of nuclear waste. We’ll see who gets cancer first.
What? Surely you’re not afraid? Remember – all the hype about nuclear waste is just politically driven, right?