R
rdean
Guest
Nuclear energy leaves radioactive waste. Where does it go? You can't just flush it down the toilet. When you ask questions like that, I can't tell if you honestly don't know or you think you're being funny.
Republicans top donor is nuclear waste dump billionaire
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
Nuclear energy leaves radioactive waste. Where does it go? You can't just flush it down the toilet. When you ask questions like that, I can't tell if you honestly don't know or you think you're being funny.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
So then, what is the solution to the current nuclear waste problem? Where are we going to put it?
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
With answers like that, I can tell that you honestly don't know. That is an engineering problem, what problems do scientist need to solve?
You really should stop claiming to be an engineer since you don't understand the difference between an applied/engineering problem and a theoretical/scientific one.
By the way, engineers are a lot further along in dealing with radiation than you realize. France recycles and reuses spent fuel in their reactors, and have been for decades. I guess that puts your knowledge level in the issue stuck somewhere in the 1970s.
Papageorgio
The Ultimate Winner
So what is your answer to the problem, blame Republicans? It's worked for Obama.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
That is almost as dumb as rdean's claim that the Ogallala Aquaifier supplies all the water for the US.
Ogallala Aquifer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Thread starter
- #27
The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years,[41] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.[42] Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically.[43] [44] Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning[45] and cost evaluations[46] are concerned. Long term behavior of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects in geoforecasting.[47]
Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radioactive waste - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Thread starter
- #28
I think we should store all of our nuclear waste in Texas.
Near the governor's mansion.
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,106
- 245
Sounds good to me, it would kill off all the liberals in Austin.
ThinkCritically
Open to opinion
I think the point of the thread is to demonstrate what we all should know by now this is a crony infested system. Obama and Romney will both be bought out before the end of the election.
Until we restructure campaign finance in order to prevent this obvious pandering, we will be a nation ruled by special interest groups and corporations. Politicians don't bite the hand that feeds them.
- Thread starter
- #31
The point of this thread is to show the danger in electing Republicans.
ThinkCritically
Open to opinion
What is Your Position on the On Site Processing of Fuel Rods? ...... Class!...... Class! .....
Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel
(Updated 7 November 2011)
Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes.
New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.
A significant amount of plutonium recovered from used fuel is currently recycled into MOX fuel; a small amount of recovered uranium is recycled.
A key, nearly unique, characteristic of nuclear energy is that used fuel may be reprocessed to recover fissile and fertile materials in order to provide fresh fuel for existing and future nuclear power plants. Several European countries, Russia and Japan have had a policy to reprocess used nuclear fuel, although government policies in many other countries have not yet addressed the various aspects of reprocessing.
Over the last 50 years the principal reason for reprocessing used fuel has been to recover unused uranium and plutonium in the used fuel elements and thereby close the fuel cycle, gaining some 25% more energy from the original uranium in the process and thus contributing to energy security. A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one fifth. In addition, the level of radioactivity in the waste from reprocessing is much smaller and after about 100 years falls much more rapidly than in used fuel itself.
In the last decade interest has grown in recovering all long-lived actinides together (i.e. with plutonium) so as to recycle them in fast reactors so that they end up as short-lived fission products. This policy is driven by two factors: reducing the long-term radioactivity in high-level wastes, and reducing the possibility of plutonium being diverted from civil use – thereby increasing proliferation resistance of the fuel cycle. If used fuel is not reprocessed, then in a century or two the built-in radiological protection will have diminished, allowing the plutonium to be recovered for illicit use (though it is unsuitable for weapons due to the non-fissile isotopes present).
Reprocessing used fuela to recover uranium (as reprocessed uranium, or RepU) and plutonium (Pu) avoids the wastage of a valuable resource. Most of it – about 96% – is uranium, of which less than 1% is the fissile U-235 (often 0.4-0.8%); and up to 1% is plutonium. Both can be recycled as fresh fuel, saving up to 30% of the natural uranium otherwise required. The materials potentially available for recycling (but locked up in stored used fuel) could conceivably run the US reactor fleet of about 100 GWe for almost 30 years with no new uranium input.
So far, almost 90,000 tonnes (of 290,000 t discharged) of used fuel from commercial power reactors has been reprocessed. Annual reprocessing capacity is now some 4000 tonnes per year for normal oxide fuels, but not all of it is operational.
Between now and 2030 some 400,000 tonnes of used fuel is expected to be generated worldwide, including 60,000 t in North America and 69,000 t in Europe.
Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel
(Updated 7 November 2011)
Used nuclear fuel has long been reprocessed to extract fissile materials for recycling and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes.
New reprocessing technologies are being developed to be deployed in conjunction with fast neutron reactors which will burn all long-lived actinides.
A significant amount of plutonium recovered from used fuel is currently recycled into MOX fuel; a small amount of recovered uranium is recycled.
A key, nearly unique, characteristic of nuclear energy is that used fuel may be reprocessed to recover fissile and fertile materials in order to provide fresh fuel for existing and future nuclear power plants. Several European countries, Russia and Japan have had a policy to reprocess used nuclear fuel, although government policies in many other countries have not yet addressed the various aspects of reprocessing.
Over the last 50 years the principal reason for reprocessing used fuel has been to recover unused uranium and plutonium in the used fuel elements and thereby close the fuel cycle, gaining some 25% more energy from the original uranium in the process and thus contributing to energy security. A secondary reason is to reduce the volume of material to be disposed of as high-level waste to about one fifth. In addition, the level of radioactivity in the waste from reprocessing is much smaller and after about 100 years falls much more rapidly than in used fuel itself.
In the last decade interest has grown in recovering all long-lived actinides together (i.e. with plutonium) so as to recycle them in fast reactors so that they end up as short-lived fission products. This policy is driven by two factors: reducing the long-term radioactivity in high-level wastes, and reducing the possibility of plutonium being diverted from civil use – thereby increasing proliferation resistance of the fuel cycle. If used fuel is not reprocessed, then in a century or two the built-in radiological protection will have diminished, allowing the plutonium to be recovered for illicit use (though it is unsuitable for weapons due to the non-fissile isotopes present).
Reprocessing used fuela to recover uranium (as reprocessed uranium, or RepU) and plutonium (Pu) avoids the wastage of a valuable resource. Most of it – about 96% – is uranium, of which less than 1% is the fissile U-235 (often 0.4-0.8%); and up to 1% is plutonium. Both can be recycled as fresh fuel, saving up to 30% of the natural uranium otherwise required. The materials potentially available for recycling (but locked up in stored used fuel) could conceivably run the US reactor fleet of about 100 GWe for almost 30 years with no new uranium input.
So far, almost 90,000 tonnes (of 290,000 t discharged) of used fuel from commercial power reactors has been reprocessed. Annual reprocessing capacity is now some 4000 tonnes per year for normal oxide fuels, but not all of it is operational.
Between now and 2030 some 400,000 tonnes of used fuel is expected to be generated worldwide, including 60,000 t in North America and 69,000 t in Europe.
Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel
Listening
Gold Member
- Aug 27, 2011
- 14,989
- 1,650
- 260
The point of this thread is that we have a trumped up issue that is being used by a moron on the left to push a liberal agenda of Hope and Change (hope not to work by changing it so that the rich can support me).
Useful facts have still not been put in context.
This country currently runs nuclear power plants.
The left is so keen on green energy, and nuclear power does not emit CO2....but they don't like it.
I am sure the left teaches classes on how to read by candlelight.
Useful facts have still not been put in context.
This country currently runs nuclear power plants.
The left is so keen on green energy, and nuclear power does not emit CO2....but they don't like it.
I am sure the left teaches classes on how to read by candlelight.
Last edited:
The T
George S. Patton Party
That's what Chrissy wants to pretend.
Carbon Monoxide.
Skull Pilot
Diamond Member
- Nov 17, 2007
- 45,446
- 6,164
- 1,830
Since the dimwit dimocrats and their ovine masses have succeeded in fomenting a fear of nuclear power and have made it illegal to recycle so called nuclear waste in this country someone has to be willing to store it somewhere.
BTW we are missing out on the multi-billion dollar industry of medical isotopes because of this short sighted irrational fear of recycling nuclear materials.
There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com
BTW we are missing out on the multi-billion dollar industry of medical isotopes because of this short sighted irrational fear of recycling nuclear materials.
There Is No Such Thing as Nuclear Waste - WSJ.com
Agreed.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Please comment on new “ Project Hell Marry trailer ?? Getting great reviews- Started by Quasar44
- Replies: 0
-
Jasmine Crockett’s Security Guard Fatally Shot By Dallas SWAT In Standoff – What We Know- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 0
-
-
Illegal immigrant was discovered to have been voting for more than a decade in Philadelphia- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 8
