OT: Please send this link to everyone one your mailing list

Page 8 of 12  
Robatoy wrote:

MOP?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robatoy wrote:

I'm disappointed that he's anti-nuke.
Nuclear power might be the greenest electricity currently available.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

B A R R Y, If there were a good way to deal with the radioactive waste. Kerry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:45:31 -0800, Kerry Montgomery wrote:

From everything I've seen, the next generation or two should see reactors that will actually take todays waste in as fuel and churn out barely- radioactive 'waste' at the end of it.
So maybe we should be going nuclear big time and planning 200 year storage with easy access instead of 10,000 year storage that nobody can get to?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kerry Montgomery wrote:

It's recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
B A R R Y wrote:

Recyclable? How? I want to see the specific uses for 98 percent of the components of radioactive waste from a reactor since you assert that it is "recyclable, down to an incredibly small amount". Put it in the form of a list, identifying the component, the percentage prevalence in the waste, and the use for it that allows recycling.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Radioactive waste from a power plant occupies a really an extremely small volume. Consider that every gram of waste produced at all the plants in the US is currently stored within the grounds of the plant that generated it. The vast majority of what is called "Radioactive Waste" is really composed of items such as wipe rage, coveralls, materials used in medicine and incidental contaminated hardware. These things are usually not even contaminated but were used in conjunction with things radioactive and as such are considered contaminated. The majority of material from a power plant is unused base material. The highly radioactive component of the waste is only a few percent of the total. If they are cycled out of the matrix the base material can be reformed into new fuel rods and used to generate more electricity. The resultant waste is all that needs to be stored, albeit for a very long time. If properly packaged and diluted there can be no danger from this material.
Dave N
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David G. Nagel wrote:

That's nice. But the quantity was not at issue, the assertion that it can be "recycled down to an incredibly tiny amount" is at issue. If it can I want to know how tiny and in what ways it is recycled.

Take a look at http://maps.google.com/maps?ll7.138972,-76.643733&z &t=h&hl=en. The ship on the left with the green decks is the SS Savannah. If you find that location in Google Earth and zoom out you will see that it is well within the confines of the United States. If you google the name of the ship you will find that the fuel has long since been removed from the reactor. It is your assertion that every gram of radioactive waste associated with that removal is stored on the ship? And how about the nuclear waste from the numerous nuclear powered warships that have been decommissioned and scrapped out?

So how are you going to recycle them?

So how are you going to recycle them? Run a geiger counter over them and if doesn't click put them in a bag and ship them to Harbor Freight?

Uh, please define "unused base material". Do you mean "enriched uranium"?

Well that's nice, how do you recycle it?

Why do they need to be "cycled out of the matrix"? The reason that the fuel needs to be replace is not "high level radioactive compoents" but the accumulation of "neutron poisons" that interfere with the reaction. The high level radioactive components are an obstacle to the chemical removal of those neutron poisons.

So of the total amount of radioctive waste produced by a reactor, what percentage does this constitute?

Who said anything about danger? The question was not about safety, the question was "show me the numbers".
And from you, all I get is more vague bullshit, no numbers. Do you have the numbers? If so please present them. If not, what relevance to the question posed do you believe your pile of bafflegab to have?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You've been trolled.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Troll
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

AKA a troll.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Wrong word.
Reprocessable.
<http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
B A R R Y wrote:

In other words prepared for storage. From your fact sheet: "High-level reprocessed waste is vitrified (solidified) and stored at La Hague for several decades, where it awaits final geologic disposal."
Not at all the same thing as recycling, unless you consider putting something in a plastic bag so that it may be more easily transported to the landfill "recycling".
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is simply called a Breeder Reactor. It takes anything in and processes as you want e.g. power fuel pellets.
These were designed an proved to work - in the 60's. The long forgotten lab in Tenn. did the work. They processed the first metal in the first place.
France has them up and running as well as Japan and another maybe. We in the US have been hampered with false diatribe on the dangers which shut down the nuke power plants.
Simply said, soft coal power plants put out more nuke foul stuff than nuke plants. EVEN the one in N.J.
Martin
J. Clarke wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Martin H. Eastburn wrote:

Anything? You mean it can take dirty laundry and turn it into fuel pellets?

Was that "long forgotten lab in Tenn." anywhere near Oak Ridge National Laboratories?

Has what up and running? Some way to turn dirty sweat socks into fuel pellets?

"False diatribe"? I think this word does not mean what you think it means.

Which has still not answered the question.
Hint--breeders don't do what you seem to think they do. They don't "take in anything", they take in either uranium 238 or Thorium 232 and turn them into Plutonium 239 or Uranium 233 respectively. After that you use that uranium or plutonium in a reactor just like any other uranium or plutonium.
Yes, U-238 from spent reactor fuel can be bred into plutonium, but once you've used the plutonium you still have an equal mass of reaction products to deal with.

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ohh for fuck sakes.......
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

We used to monitor coal flow with a Geiger counter. No ticki ticki, no coal on the belt to the pulverizers. Coal is awful stuff. Nobody ever talks about the nasty metals, like vanadium and such... or the NOx... We installed scrubbers to get rid of the sulphur compounds...so we ended up wit a pond full of dirty sulphur. And what DO you do with a few million tons of fly-ash? Clinkers? Coal mining related health/safety issues (Sago)? EVERY day?
It all makes a few thimbles of spent nuclear fuel seem rather easy to manage.
Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

We used to monitor coal flow with a Geiger counter. No ticki ticki, no coal on the belt to the pulverizers. Coal is awful stuff. Nobody ever talks about the nasty metals, like vanadium and such... or the NOx... We installed scrubbers to get rid of the sulphur compounds...so we ended up wit a pond full of dirty sulphur. And what DO you do with a few million tons of fly-ash? Clinkers? Coal mining related health/safety issues (Sago)? EVERY day?
It all makes a few thimbles of spent nuclear fuel seem rather easy to manage.
Opponents of nuclear energy are simply inadequately informed. WAAY too much booga-booga being strewn around by the oil/coal lobbyists.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IIRC it seems to me that those who mess with brown coal and some of the lesser bitumens are pretty much getting what they asked for.
I remember having to fire the family furnace as a kid. Whenever we used anthracite we had no smog problems and when we had to use the lesser coals we had lots of klinkers and smell.
It would seem that it is mostly a matter of economics: Brown is cheap and hard is expensive so use brown and pocket the difference. Not to worry about the effluvia as someone else will do that for us.
That nuke stuff is far more worrisome as it only has a half-life of upwards of 10,000 years.
P D Q
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nuke stuff is worrisome because people don't know anything about it. They're perpetuating bad information. Google for a paper called The Health Hazards Of Not Going Nuclear.....then get back to me.
Start here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25019125
I assure you that Dr. Petr Beckmann is not a kook.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nuke stuff is worrisome because people don't know anything about it. They're perpetuating bad information. Google for a paper called The Health Hazards Of Not Going Nuclear.....then get back to me.
Start here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JZS/is_/ai_n25019125
I assure you that Dr. Petr Beckmann is not a kook.
No. He is a dead electrical engineer.
I guess, if one is wont to play that game, one ought to be really interested in Solar, Wind, and Geothermal as a potential, if not probable, alternative to further polluting via unstable elements.
P D Q
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.