Current Events — HabitableZone

Current Events » in reply to Nuclear plants

I've answered that question a lot.
TB — (archived)

It's interesting that the nuclear industry is the only power generating industry that actually sequesters and accounts for all its waste, and has to pay for it. All the others just dump their waste into the air.

Step one for nuclear waste is reprocessing.

To simplify: If large amounts of waste product are highly radioactive, this is a sign that you have not gotten all the energy out of it that you could have.

Not only is reprocessing good for reducing end waste, it saves on the original fuel you need. There isn't an infinite supply of uranium either, and any robust and mature nuclear power industry must involve reprocessing and reburning nuclear wastes. Reprocessing does not eliminate all high-level waste, but the volume is reduced by some nine times. The remainder, vitrified, amounts

If reprocessing is used, the amount of vitrified waste from a year's operation of a typical reactor would occupy a cube a little less than five feet on a side. Others are welcome to compare this to the amount of ash, particulates, CO2, and other crap thrown into the sky by burning coal and natural gas.

Step two is to simply store these vitrified remains in some outlying area. It is not necessary to find a "bury it and forget it" solution. In fact, that may not be the best idea. Store it in secure surface installations, preferably on some military-type site. At some point in the future, maybe some more permanent solution will be found that is not technically feasible today.

It is fairly obvious that locating reprocessing reactors on these same storage sites would save a lot of trouble and transport issues all around.

The idea that reprocessed fuel could be diverted to terrorists is a problem that needs to be addressed, but it seems to me that the simplest answer is to just raise the security to the same level that currently protects assembled and working hydrogen bombs from being "diverted."

There continue to be more and more reasons for moving to nuclear. This is something France did thirty years ago while we abandoned the technology, and now here we sit.

I would be the happiest guy alive if somebody pulled a working fusion reactor out of their hat, but do we bet on that showing up when we really need it? America needs to get past this phobia of nuclear power and address it realistically. We can't leave our energy policy in the hands of people who don't think we should even have launched Cassini.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (88 posts)