Welcome to the Energy Blog


  • The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

    Jim


  • SUBSCRIBE TO THE ENERGY BLOG BY EMAIL

After Gutenberg

Clean Break

The Oil Drum

Statistics

Blog powered by Typepad

« Sharp Increases Efficiency of Thin Film Cells | Main | Purdue Researchers Develop "Tactical Biorefinery" »

February 02, 2007

Comments

Udo Stenzel

Ender: some of it is dangerous for 10 000 years

Ender again: The long half-life of technetium-99 .... (T1/2 = 2.1 x 105 years)

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. Ender, there is no significant component in nuclear waste that has a half live between 70 and 70.000 years. Therefore the claim that "some of it is dangerous for 10.000 years" is bullshit, no matter how you spin it. Moreover, the difference between waste and used fuel has been explained about a bazillion times now and you still claim that nuclear waste contains Plutonium. Facts don't seem to matter at all in your argument.

Thanks for demonstrating again that antis live in a world where physics has been superseded by neo-religion. Now please go playing with your tinkertoys and leave the discussion to the grown ups.

Paul Dietz

you still claim that nuclear waste contains Plutonium. Facts don't seem to matter at all in your argument.

Pot, meet kettle.

Did you know that reprocessing doesn't remove 100% of the plutonium from the fission products? Advanced reprocessing schemes being proposed now might leave as much as .1% of the Pu in the fission product stream. Current reprocessing schemes do much worse (and don't handle the higher actinides beyond Pu).

amazingdrx

Did you know that nuclear reactor fuel production has been spreading Plutonium in the groundwater from the processing facility in Paducah, Kentucky for decades? No? That's not surprising since it has been covered up by nuclear contractor/regulators.

And it's migrating towards the Ohio River. Threatening to contaminate the entire Mississippi basin.

Dear nuclear contractor/regulators:

Please clean up that mess before you all build more nuke-u-ler plants, thanks.

I would recomend using surplus wind generation capacity (from the cheapest, cleanest baseload power source)to run a series of pumps in wells surrounding the exponentially expanding plume of radiation to collect and filter the rad waste out of the water.

Get that done, then and only then ask US about building more nukes. Maybe you will be allowed to build a few waste eating experimental reactors, if you can prove you have stopped the Kentucky contamination and all the other similar leaks across the country. Do it for free, since your negliegence caused it.

You won't do that? Fine, then we won't be needing you anymore.

Nucbuddy

Amazingdrx,


Please qualify and quantify the risks you cited.

In the case of a once-through fuel cycle, there would be no plutonium to deal with during fuel-production.

Udo Stenzel

Well, Paul, I know that processes like Pyro-A leave residual amounts of Pu in the waste stream. But the point is that Pu is not waste, it should be recovered, and only trace amounts of it should be buried. So the complete statement should be:

"Nuclear waste, if properly treated by first pyroprocessing and then an aqueous separation, contains only insignificant trace amounts of Pu."

But frankly, qualifying every single statement is too much work when debating anti-scientific nutcases who invent numbers and are simply immune to facts. Btw, pyroprocessing does retain (most of) the minor actinides.

Nucbuddy

Udo Stenzel: the point is that Pu is not waste, it should be recovered

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow. If technology and wealth continue growing, it will be easier to recycle the fuel in the future. (Many things are garbage today which may be valuable resources in the future. It is legitimate to call those things garbage while they still are garbage.) Economic analyses have been performed which indicate that once-through is cheaper than reprocessing up to a threshold of $700/kg of mined uranium. See:

(Click on Search inside this book and search for "700" to reach and read the pages that deal with fuel-cycle strategy cost-comparisons.)

Tossing the spent fuel rods or pellets into the ocean might be the most sensible thing to do. The salty ocean water would do all of the work of separating the metals. Then, the useful metals could be extracted from seawater via polymer adsorbant strips hung from stationary platforms.

Nucbuddy

Sorry. Here is the Megawatts and Megatons link, again:
amazon.com/Megawatts-Megatons-Future-Nuclear-Power/dp/0226284271

The comments to this entry are closed.

. .




Batteries/Hybrid Vehicles