Can nuclear waste be handled safely?
Panel convenes in effort to re-start U.S. nuke industry
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Can science and technology provide safe methods to
handle the waste from nuclear power plants? That's the question a
blue-ribbon panel convened by the Obama Administration Friday (Jan.
29) must answer within two years.
The panel is part of an Administration effort to re-start the
U.S. nuclear power industry which has been on hold for decades after
the accident at Three Mile Island plant and the debate over storing
spent fuel at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. President Obama said in his
State of the Union speech this week that nuclear power will be part
of his broad effort to drive a clean technology initiative in the
U.S.
"I regard myself as an environmentalist, but I believe nuclear
power has to play some role [in a renewable energy future] because
it is carbon free, and I believe it can be a safe environmentally
friendly alternative," said Steven Chu, U.S. Secretary of Energy,
announcing the panel in a conference call. "As a scientist, I
believe these issues are solvable in a manner that can gain
confidence for American people," he added.
The news came the same day the Department of Energy announced
progress in research on fusion technology seen as a safer approach
to nuclear power.
"Fusion would be wonderful, however practically speaking no one
expects it to be commercialized in the first half of this century,"
said Chu. "These are research projects, but the nuclear technology
we are trying to restart in the U.S. has been proven and we can make
it safe and environmentally responsible," he said.
The 15-member DoE panel that will recommend safe practices for
spent nuclear fuel includes a diverse range of technical experts and
politicians. They include a former commissioner of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, a former chancellor of UCLA, and
professors of physics and environmental science at the University of
California, Berkeley; George Mason University and the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
"This isn't about picking another spot [to store nuclear waste],"
said Chu.. "We will look at the full range of scientific options for
dealing with the back end of nuclear fuel cycle," he said.
Can nuclear power technology be made safe? What is the latest
technology for handling nuclear waste? We invite the engineering
community to share your thoughts below.
COMMENTS:
#
jg_
Embedded Designer
commented on Jan 29, 2010 3:34:26 PM
"Can nuclear waste be handled safely?" is the WRONG question to be
asking. It has been 'handled safely' for years. The Nuclear industries
elephant in the room is NOT the 'handling of waste', is it the effects
of Earthquakes (ask Japan), the effect of operational systems failures
(ask USSR, USA, UK), and the effect of storage lifetimes, and the soft
target of plants.
A smarter question is : Can they slash the half-life of waste ?
#
EFJ
Radiation Safety Officer
commented on Jan 29, 2010 3:56:32 PM
Over 95% of the spent fuel from a light water reactor is composed of
uranium isotopes (94% U238 and less than 1% U235) which can be reused in
fuel rods. About 1% is plutonium which can also be used for fuel. The
most radiotoxic remaining elements are the actinides like americium and
curium. These will eventually also undergo fission if placed in a high
neutron flux (especially if you use high energy neutrons in a fast
neutron spectrum reactor like the IFR). Another inovative reactor
developed by Oak Ridge the molten fluoride salt reactor run on a
thorium/uranium 233 fuel cycle would produce very small amounts of
actinides which could be left in the reactor fuel until they were
fissioned. A fairly large liquid fluoride salt thorium fueled reactor
would only use approximately one ton of thorium per year.
The vast majority of the fission products produced have a half life of
less than ten years. The two predominant remaining isotopes following
ten years of decay are Cs137 and Sr90. Each of these have a half life of
about 30 years, meaning that they will be gone in about 300 years. There
are few really long half life fission products such as Cs135, Tc99 and
I129. It is possible that these can also be transmuted in a high neutron
flux, but given their low radioactivity, they may also find uses in the
future (Tc99 has potential for a number of industrial uses).
Spent nuclear fuel disposal is not a technical problem, it is a
political problem.
#
Rick Merritt
EETimes reporter
commented on Jan 29, 2010 7:28:05 PM
Dear EFJ: So are you saying there are no longer any significant risks
with spent fuel, but the public just needs to be educated about that?
Dear jg: Indeed, it sounds like there are many unsolved problems beyond
waste. Anyone else have perspective on these issues?
#
jg_
Embedded Designer
commented on Jan 30, 2010 3:50:15 PM
I'd call Nuclear Fuel Disposal BOTH a technical problem, AND a political
problem.
The steps EFJ mention, are still ideas, and not commercially deployed.
Doing that is a technical problem.
The technical challenge is rather similar to Clean Coal : Finding a way
to design/add the systems to remove the "minus by-products" at the site
itself, whilst still being viable. Technically very challenging.
Here, Clean Coal may have the edge, as there are already commercial
scale plants ramping, whilst Nuclear solutions are years off.
Clean Coal solutions also help address the BIG issue, of what to do with
the huge investments in present coal infrastructure, which is still
growing rapidly.
By contrast, the 'GW ledger' numbers show Nuclear is now a sunset
industry, as the GW added is negative, and it has been left in the dust
by Wind, and even Solar PV.
NIF may hold more promise ? I see they just hit a 1MJ milestone on 27
jan.
#
jg_
Embedded Designer
commented on Jan 30, 2010 4:05:49 PM
Topical NIF reading:
https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2010/NR-10-01-06.html
key seems to be this :
#
aquitaine
Studying
commented on Jan 31, 2010 10:52:33 AM
Nuclear waste handling is not a technical problem, of course it can be
handled safely. The problem is politics and fear mongering. I used to
believe in Greenpeace, but their distortions and lies about nuclear
power really turned me off to them and other like minded environmental
groups.
#
aquitaine
Studying
commented on Jan 31, 2010 11:01:09 AM
I'll also add that nuclear power is the only realistic way we can beat
both global warming and future energy problems. Clean coal isn't nearly
up to the task, because it chains us to a 19th century way of getting
power. Coal is based on carbon, like any other organic substance. It
will never be truely clean.
And what about when we have more of a manned interplanetary presence in
the solar system, what will we use for power? To use VASIMIR engines and
magnetic shields, you will need some serious power, much more than you
can get with solar. Nuclear is the way into the future.
#
Rick Merritt
EETimes reporter
commented on Jan 31, 2010 9:12:13 PM
Dear Aquitaine: What's a Vasimir engine?
#
aquitaine
Studying
commented on Jan 31, 2010 10:39:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasimir
It's a type of outerspace propulsions system under development. Right
now the most powerful one uses about 200 kW, although with future
developments it will likely grow. For future spacecraft propsulsion
another promising type is nuclear propulsion, but it is only on the
drawing boards right now thanks to anti-nuclear fear mongering.
Track This Thread
,
EETimes EU
Copyright All rights reserved. |