I won't claim to know my arse from my elbow but I thought a lot of this waste contained valuable metals. Wouldn't it be better to store it so that it is retrievable for a time we may be able to process them effectively.
e.g. Gasification and stored in underground caverns in granite or such like.
Why do you supposeglass is stable even for five thousand years? If it were soeasy it would bebeing done. And it isn't. Just another half wit "academic" dismissing the problem because they don'tknow what to do aboutit.
BTW how do you "turm nuclear waste into glass"?
You are not alone. Gasification? There is a big debate as to whether nuclear waste in geological storage should be easily retrievable or not.
well that's for reprocessed fuels. They are worth keeping, but there are some medium to long term transuranics and unstable isotopes that are not much use really and in pretty small quantities. Just enough to give harry dhobi-itch, that's all.
At the moment glassification is the best way, or they might be burnt in a special purpose reactor. Not a lot of energy in the fission though so less a fuel than a sort of damp cardboard.
There isn't one. That is the exact problem. And there have been failed permanent storage attempts where there has been leakage.
I suppose you could launch it into the sun, but that would hardly be practicable.
At the proposed Hinkley point reactor,they are just going to store the unprocessed waste because (a) they want to dodge the cost of processing (b) they don't know what to do with the waste after processing anyway.
They are watching others, hoping a (low cost?) solution will emerge.
There will be a need for efficient generation of electricity/micro CHP from gas for years. Both in the home or in central power ststions but it can only be regarded as a temporary fix.
It will take decades to set up a total renewable electricity system
Something is either a facto r it isn't. It's a conjecture.
Please list the instabilities of glass.
Yes it is, harry. You've been told this before. Source: Prof Sue Ion, on "The Life Scientific", BBC R4 Jan 2013.
On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote: ...
Unfortunately, there are international treaties that prohibit doing that.
In article ,
Waste of good plutonium
In message , Tim Streater writes
Yeh Underneath Winsford then press the red button.
In message , Tim Streater writes
Yes, it's all rather sad that they dismissed the principal of "System Overload" effect in estimating the damaging effects of radiation regarding the time element of the exposure equation.
Recieving a whole day's worth of sunshine in just one hour would be lethal and a similar effect with other forms of radiation should have been expected to apply with radioactivity in regard to dose rates.
The penny finally seems to be dropping in the mind of the standards bodies. Pity it took a few "Major" disasters (besides the Hiroshima and Nagasaki events) for that fact to finally start sinking in.
Is that so?
And for good reason. Another crap idea by the desperate nuclear industry.
Which good reason would that be, then, harry? Hint: polluting our "pristine" ocean is not any sort of reason.
There are plenty of examples of natural glass, formed by quench-cooling of molten silica-rich rocks such as some volcanic lavas (rhyolites), that have been around and stable for hundreds of millions of years. It has the general name 'obsidian', and was used by early man in many parts of the world for cutting tools and weapons, much as flint was used in the UK. See
Having said that, the composition of obsidian is not the same as the glass used for encapsulating nuclear waste, which in the UK is a borosilicate glass with composition broadly similar Pyrex. See
Yes it is. This, from the Wiki reference link above:
"Currently at Sellafield the high-level waste (PUREX first cycle raffinate) is mixed with sugar and then calcined. Calcination involves passing the waste through a heated, rotating tube. The purposes of calcination are to evaporate the water from the waste, and de-nitrate the fission products to assist the stability of the glass produced.
The 'calcine' generated is fed continuously into an induction heated furnace with fragmented glass. The resulting glass is a new substance in which the waste products are bonded into the glass matrix when it solidifies. This product, as a melt, is poured into stainless steel cylindrical containers ("cylinders") in a batch process. When cooled, the fluid solidifies ("vitrifies") into the glass. Such glass, after being formed, is highly resistant to water."
And as Tim Streater pointed out "The Life Scientific", BBC R4 Jan
2013
See above.
Not if you actually understand the proposal. The problem is that dropping glassified waste into a subduction zone is covered by the same rules that prevent untreated radioactive waste being dropped on the continental shelf. Preventing the latter is good. Preventing the former is pointless.
[snip]
Bottom line: harry talking c*ck as usual.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.