Regarding Nuclear Waste some things i have always wondered.
I realize that we can't reliably shoot it into space with our current technology. But what about the opposite so to speak. What about wrapping it in sufficient material and drop it down our deepest subduction zones.
It seems to me that the pressures in some of the trenches will keep the wrapping material and the nuclear waste in a neat little balls. At that depth it does not seem it would be recoverable by potential bad guys.
I hope I am not beating a dead horse here and I must be missing something obvious here that would lead to contamination some other way?
All that pressure would be more likely to break whatever we wrapped it in than to keep it all nice and neat. And once that broke, that pressure would likely dissipate the stuff real quicklike, where it could spread and cause god-knows-what-kinda-trouble.
QUOTE (JeanPierreSarti+May 20 2008, 02:28 PM)
Regarding Nuclear Waste some things i have always wondered.
I realize that we can't reliably shoot it into space with our current technology. But what about the opposite so to speak. What about wrapping it in sufficient material and drop it down our deepest subduction zones.
It seems to me that the pressures in some of the trenches will keep the wrapping material and the nuclear waste in a neat little balls. At that depth it does not seem it would be recoverable by potential bad guys.
I hope I am not beating a dead horse here and I must be missing something obvious here that would lead to contamination some other way?
Wow, I swear I just had this conversation with my brother...
Launching it into space is not a good solution for many reasons, including the safety concerns should something go wrong with the launch, as well as the quantity of pollutants released into the atmosphere as a result of burning the propellants, and the cost. Now, if the space elevator ever happens, then maybe this could be feasible. Heck, just release it on a trajectory to fall into the sun, and the problem is gone forever.
The other idea, dropping it into the subduction zones deep in the ocean, might not be a bad idea. After all, it's so deep it can never be recovered, right? And over time, much less time than it would spend sitting under a mountain, it would be subducted and eventually destroyed by the mantle, right?
I'm not entirely convinced by this idea, but it sounds like it could bear further investigation. Contamination is still possible, if, for example, the containers fail, and the accurate delivery of the containers to the appropriate zones could be difficult. The effect of the container itself on the environment must also be considered.
Honestly, though, to me Yucca Mountain doesn't seem that bad. I mean, miles underground in an area with little to no ground water movement, with the current containment units that can withstand the impact of a diesel locomotive and then being burned without leaking, among other tests... of course, it could be vulnerable to attack or theft, but it's non-weapons-grade material, so where's the problem?
I realize that we can't reliably shoot it into space with our current technology. But what about the opposite so to speak. What about wrapping it in sufficient material and drop it down our deepest subduction zones.
It seems to me that the pressures in some of the trenches will keep the wrapping material and the nuclear waste in a neat little balls. At that depth it does not seem it would be recoverable by potential bad guys.
I hope I am not beating a dead horse here and I must be missing something obvious here that would lead to contamination some other way?
Wow, I swear I just had this conversation with my brother...
Launching it into space is not a good solution for many reasons, including the safety concerns should something go wrong with the launch, as well as the quantity of pollutants released into the atmosphere as a result of burning the propellants, and the cost. Now, if the space elevator ever happens, then maybe this could be feasible. Heck, just release it on a trajectory to fall into the sun, and the problem is gone forever.
The other idea, dropping it into the subduction zones deep in the ocean, might not be a bad idea. After all, it's so deep it can never be recovered, right? And over time, much less time than it would spend sitting under a mountain, it would be subducted and eventually destroyed by the mantle, right?
I'm not entirely convinced by this idea, but it sounds like it could bear further investigation. Contamination is still possible, if, for example, the containers fail, and the accurate delivery of the containers to the appropriate zones could be difficult. The effect of the container itself on the environment must also be considered.
Honestly, though, to me Yucca Mountain doesn't seem that bad. I mean, miles underground in an area with little to no ground water movement, with the current containment units that can withstand the impact of a diesel locomotive and then being burned without leaking, among other tests... of course, it could be vulnerable to attack or theft, but it's non-weapons-grade material, so where's the problem?
Later, when the coastal volcanoes started spouting radioactive ash, the inhabitants realized they'd have to move inland.
That might not be a big deal though. Quite a long time passes between subduction and interior volcanic orogenies, I imagine.
I think I recall reading that the Atlantic is just nearly at the end of it's growth phase, at about 200 My.
If I recall wrongly, please give me some schooling!
I think I recall reading that the Atlantic is just nearly at the end of it's growth phase, at about 200 My.
If I recall wrongly, please give me some schooling!
There's no subduction in the Atlantic, so it's not the best example. Anywhere around the Ring of Fire would work though. Many volcanoes are within 100 miles of a subduction zone. My very rough guess is that it would take several million years to be subducted underneath a volcano (slip rate 3.5 in/yr) and another very long period of time for it to work to the surface. Of course the radioactive material is producing heat so it might speed this process up a tiny bit.
Anyway thanks for pointing out how ridiculous my smartass answer was.
Anyway thanks for pointing out how ridiculous my smartass answer was.
Not smartassed at all, a good point, really.
I know that the Atlantic isn't closing, yet. I meant that it will be in about another 20 My, but that's OK...
I know that the Atlantic isn't closing, yet. I meant that it will be in about another 20 My, but that's OK...
hmm.. ... I was just watching "eco-tech" on the science channel and there was a segment about a funded company that is developing a way to use the waste..or break it down... or get the good stuff out of the spent bulk for reuse... I didn't catch all of it.
Next viewing is june 23 at 10 AM. It's called "ECO-tech (ZERO WASTE)"
An article here:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007...g-nuclear-waste
excerpt from article:
Another central GNEP objective is to deal with the nation's growing nuclear-waste problem: The country's 103 nuclear reactors produce 2,200 tons of radioactive waste annually, and there's no good place to put it. Even if no new reactors are built, at current rates, the U.S. will have produced more than 94,600 tons of spent nuclear fuel by 2050, and the repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, America's lone long-term solution to radioactive-waste storage, will stow just 77,000 tons when it's slated to open in 2020.
Yet not everyone thinks GNEP's strategy for recycling waste is the solution. Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists, for example, says that the new type of recycled fuel would contain as much as 90 percent plutonium, making it a much more attractive target to a bomb-building terrorist. Spent fuel from traditional reactors, by comparison, contains only 1 percent plutonium.
GNEP officials reject this criticism. The new recycling process, they argue, will not isolate pure plutonium, making it more difficult to convert the leftovers into a bomb. Specifically, the process calls for dissolving spent fuel in nitric acid to chemically extract the nastiest 1 percent-the highly radioactive elements plutonium, neptunium, americium and curium, also known as actinides-as well as depleted uranium. (The remaining waste is stored in traditional casks.) The uranium is then re-enriched, recombined with the actinides, and compressed into fuel pellets for state-of-the-art reactors. In this scheme, waste is used repeatedly, transforming it into less harmful elements with each cycle.
Next viewing is june 23 at 10 AM. It's called "ECO-tech (ZERO WASTE)"
An article here:
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2007...g-nuclear-waste
excerpt from article:
Another central GNEP objective is to deal with the nation's growing nuclear-waste problem: The country's 103 nuclear reactors produce 2,200 tons of radioactive waste annually, and there's no good place to put it. Even if no new reactors are built, at current rates, the U.S. will have produced more than 94,600 tons of spent nuclear fuel by 2050, and the repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, America's lone long-term solution to radioactive-waste storage, will stow just 77,000 tons when it's slated to open in 2020.
Yet not everyone thinks GNEP's strategy for recycling waste is the solution. Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists, for example, says that the new type of recycled fuel would contain as much as 90 percent plutonium, making it a much more attractive target to a bomb-building terrorist. Spent fuel from traditional reactors, by comparison, contains only 1 percent plutonium.
GNEP officials reject this criticism. The new recycling process, they argue, will not isolate pure plutonium, making it more difficult to convert the leftovers into a bomb. Specifically, the process calls for dissolving spent fuel in nitric acid to chemically extract the nastiest 1 percent-the highly radioactive elements plutonium, neptunium, americium and curium, also known as actinides-as well as depleted uranium. (The remaining waste is stored in traditional casks.) The uranium is then re-enriched, recombined with the actinides, and compressed into fuel pellets for state-of-the-art reactors. In this scheme, waste is used repeatedly, transforming it into less harmful elements with each cycle.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.