Are any of the Fukushima power plants still fissioning fuel?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Another earthquake would do nothing. The problem with Fukushima was the quake destroyed all the cooling for the still-hot fuel. There isn't hot fuel there now.

^That.

The containment structures are seriously tough. Even another 9.0 quake wouldn't spread their current contents around - and even in the unlikely event that such a quake did cause a leak, without a heat source to make the stuff inside into smoke, it wouldn't be going anywhere; the effects would be strictly localised, and yet again the actual disaster would be the massive fucking earthquake.

You know, the one that killed 16,000 people, but which has been largely forgotten by a public who are more interested in a nuclear incident that was caused by the 'quake, and killed 0 people.

Unless people stop emoting about non-events, while ignoring major disasters like this, we are all doomed.

I won't hold my breath.

Nuclear energy has particular risks that must be safeguarded. You can't dump spent rods and contaminated material into an ash dump like coal. That's what makes it different. It's like PCBs and other persistent contaminants, only worse because it lasts so much longer.

Those containment structures are tough and are meant to contain the hazard, but they won't outlive the hazard.

 

[bilby]

^That.

The containment structures are seriously tough. Even another 9.0 quake wouldn't spread their current contents around - and even in the unlikely event that such a quake did cause a leak, without a heat source to make the stuff inside into smoke, it wouldn't be going anywhere; the effects would be strictly localised, and yet again the actual disaster would be the massive fucking earthquake.

You know, the one that killed 16,000 people, but which has been largely forgotten by a public who are more interested in a nuclear incident that was caused by the 'quake, and killed 0 people.

Unless people stop emoting about non-events, while ignoring major disasters like this, we are all doomed.

I won't hold my breath.

Nuclear energy has particular risks that must be safeguarded. You can't dump spent rods and contaminated material into an ash dump like coal. That's what makes it different. It's like PCBs and other persistent contaminants, only worse because it lasts so much longer.

Those containment structures are tough and are meant to contain the hazard, but they won't outlive the hazard.

You can't just dump coal ash without harming the health of those who live nearby - but they do anyway.

Radioactive waste is unlike persistent contaminants like PCBs in that radionuclides disappear over time. You have your facts exactly backwards.

 

[barbos]

Fuel in the reactor is still there.

 

[bilby]

Fuel in the reactor is still there.

And it's staying there. It's contained, it's cold, and it's dense. It's not going to leap out and ravish any passing Japanese fishermen.

 

[fromderinside]

Radioactive waste is unlike persistent contaminants like PCBs in that radionuclides disappear over time. You have your facts exactly backwards.

Ah time. Yes indeed. Humans are having trouble keeping lessons of the first half of the 20th century much less the 10,000 to one million years necessary for proper management of nuclear waste.

from:  Radioactive waste

The time frame in question when dealing with radioactive waste ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000 years,^[60] according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.^[61]Researchers suggest that forecasts of health detriment for such periods should be examined critically.^[62][63] Practical studies only consider up to 100 years as far as effective planning^[64] and cost evaluations^[65] are concerned. Long term behavior of radioactive wastes remains a subject for ongoing research projects in geoforecasting.^[66]

Still living out those three visits from ACE people in asbestos gear with Geiger counters and other collection devices in the mid fifties. Oh and my thyroid condition is due to a radium treatment for discolored skin when I was an infant.

We don't want to put to fine a point on the fear factor that is driving today's politics do we.

 

[barbos]

Fuel in the reactor is still there.

And it's staying there. It's contained, it's cold, and it's dense. It's not going to leap out and ravish any passing Japanese fishermen.

I understand there were cracks in the reactor and I am not sure about how cold is it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Nuclear energy has particular risks that must be safeguarded. You can't dump spent rods and contaminated material into an ash dump like coal. That's what makes it different. It's like PCBs and other persistent contaminants, only worse because it lasts so much longer.

Those containment structures are tough and are meant to contain the hazard, but they won't outlive the hazard.

You can't just dump coal ash without harming the health of those who live nearby - but they do anyway.

Radioactive waste is unlike persistent contaminants like PCBs in that radionuclides disappear over time. You have your facts exactly backwards.

You're not sounding informed. Coal ash is dangerous, as are PCBs, but unlike radioactive waste which must be encapsulated and then quarantined for millennia. If it were like these other things disposal wouldn't be such a big deal, which it is.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And it's staying there. It's contained, it's cold, and it's dense. It's not going to leap out and ravish any passing Japanese fishermen.

I understand there were cracks in the reactor and I am not sure about how cold is it.

If the steering rods are fully deployed (which the are) nothing happens. This is by design.

 

[barbos]

I understand there were cracks in the reactor and I am not sure about how cold is it.

If the steering rods are fully deployed (which the are) nothing happens. This is by design.

That's true if vessel is intact, which it is not. It was damaged.

 

[bilby]

You can't just dump coal ash without harming the health of those who live nearby - but they do anyway.

Radioactive waste is unlike persistent contaminants like PCBs in that radionuclides disappear over time. You have your facts exactly backwards.

You're not sounding informed. Coal ash is dangerous, as are PCBs, but unlike radioactive waste which must be encapsulated and then quarantined for millennia. If it were like these other things disposal wouldn't be such a big deal, which it is.

It really isn't.

Energetic materials are not generally feared for their risks; they are valued as resources.

For no obvious reason, radioactive materials are considered by many to be an exception to this rule.

Fire is dangerous because it is highly energetic.

If a material is sufficiently energetic to be dangerous, it's not 'waste' - it's fuel. That we don't use it as such is just silliness.

It's been known since the 1960s that 'waste' can be used to fuel MSRs, so worrying about storing nuclear waste for centuries or millennia makes as much sense as worrying about what to do with the dangerously flammable light fraction materials that are a byproduct of mineral oil extraction was on the 1850s.

At that time, oil companies wanted to replace whale oil with cheaper mineral oil; but one hazard of this was that it left them with lots of very hazardous, and completely useless, light hydrocarbon 'waste'. Part of this dangerous waste turned out to be usable for lighting, and could replace coal gas for that purpose. The liquid fraction of the waste has no useful purpose though; it needed to be stored or burned off, both of which were dangerous to do.

Clearly the mineral oil industry couldn't be allowed to go ahead until they found a safe way to dispose of this so-called 'gasoline' stuff.



Really, worrying about nuclear waste was technologically and scientifically illiterate fifty years ago.

There's no excuse for it today - it's pure technophobia.

(Btw: Total injuries, including fatalities, worldwide, from exposure to nuclear waste from power plants, in all of the history of this 'dangerous' material are exactly zero - so it's clearly a massive problem that justifies all this angst).

 

[DrZoidberg]

If the steering rods are fully deployed (which the are) nothing happens. This is by design.

That's true if vessel is intact, which it is not. It was damaged.

The vessel doesn't matter in this regard.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You're not sounding informed. Coal ash is dangerous, as are PCBs, but unlike radioactive waste which must be encapsulated and then quarantined for millennia. If it were like these other things disposal wouldn't be such a big deal, which it is.

It really isn't.

Energetic materials are not generally feared for their risks; they are valued as resources.

For no obvious reason, radioactive materials are considered by many to be an exception to this rule.

Fire is dangerous because it is highly energetic.

If a material is sufficiently energetic to be dangerous, it's not 'waste' - it's fuel. That we don't use it as such is just silliness.

It's been known since the 1960s that 'waste' can be used to fuel MSRs, so worrying about storing nuclear waste for centuries or millennia makes as much sense as worrying about what to do with the dangerously flammable light fraction materials that are a byproduct of mineral oil extraction was on the 1850s.

At that time, oil companies wanted to replace whale oil with cheaper mineral oil; but one hazard of this was that it left them with lots of very hazardous, and completely useless, light hydrocarbon 'waste'. Part of this dangerous waste turned out to be usable for lighting, and could replace coal gas for that purpose. The liquid fraction of the waste has no useful purpose though; it needed to be stored or burned off, both of which were dangerous to do.

Clearly the mineral oil industry couldn't be allowed to go ahead until they found a safe way to dispose of this so-called 'gasoline' stuff.



Really, worrying about nuclear waste was technologically and scientifically illiterate fifty years ago.

There's no excuse for it today - it's pure technophobia.

(Btw: Total injuries, including fatalities, worldwide, from exposure to nuclear waste from power plants, in all of the history of this 'dangerous' material are exactly zero - so it's clearly a massive problem that justifies all this angst).

So just dump it all in landfills?

 

[bilby]

It really isn't.

Energetic materials are not generally feared for their risks; they are valued as resources.

For no obvious reason, radioactive materials are considered by many to be an exception to this rule.

Fire is dangerous because it is highly energetic.

If a material is sufficiently energetic to be dangerous, it's not 'waste' - it's fuel. That we don't use it as such is just silliness.

It's been known since the 1960s that 'waste' can be used to fuel MSRs, so worrying about storing nuclear waste for centuries or millennia makes as much sense as worrying about what to do with the dangerously flammable light fraction materials that are a byproduct of mineral oil extraction was on the 1850s.

At that time, oil companies wanted to replace whale oil with cheaper mineral oil; but one hazard of this was that it left them with lots of very hazardous, and completely useless, light hydrocarbon 'waste'. Part of this dangerous waste turned out to be usable for lighting, and could replace coal gas for that purpose. The liquid fraction of the waste has no useful purpose though; it needed to be stored or burned off, both of which were dangerous to do.

Clearly the mineral oil industry couldn't be allowed to go ahead until they found a safe way to dispose of this so-called 'gasoline' stuff.



Really, worrying about nuclear waste was technologically and scientifically illiterate fifty years ago.

There's no excuse for it today - it's pure technophobia.

(Btw: Total injuries, including fatalities, worldwide, from exposure to nuclear waste from power plants, in all of the history of this 'dangerous' material are exactly zero - so it's clearly a massive problem that justifies all this angst).

So just dump it all in landfills?

Did you not read my post?

It's FUEL. I propose it should be used as fuel.

You don't dump fuel in landfills (or anywhere else) just because irrational people are scared of it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

So just dump it all in landfills?

Did you not read my post?

It's FUEL. I propose it should be used as fuel.

You don't dump fuel in landfills (or anywhere else) just because irrational people are scared of it.

Yes I read your post.

How should we be using the Hanford site radioactive "waste" materials as fuel?

 

[bilby]

Did you not read my post?

It's FUEL. I propose it should be used as fuel.

You don't dump fuel in landfills (or anywhere else) just because irrational people are scared of it.

Yes I read your post.

How should we be using the Hanford site radioactive "waste" materials as fuel?

Fluoridate them and add them to the fuel stream of a molten salt reactor.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I educated myself on the technology. I'd heard of them but never read much.

Why are none being built? Also, my reading is that they produce their own radioactive waste which must be disposed of. How is that an improvement?

Most importantly I saw nothing about how the millions of gallons and tons of radioactive contaminated materials at Hanford could be used in these type reactors.

Could you explain or post a link?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Nuclear energy has particular risks that must be safeguarded. You can't dump spent rods and contaminated material into an ash dump like coal. That's what makes it different. It's like PCBs and other persistent contaminants, only worse because it lasts so much longer.

Those containment structures are tough and are meant to contain the hazard, but they won't outlive the hazard.

We are quite capable of containing it.

1) Reprocess the fuel. 90% of the fuel was unused and can be recovered.

2) What's left will decay to ambient in 10,000 years and be awfully close to that long before then.

Thus, throw it in an old salt mine. End of problem.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You can't just dump coal ash without harming the health of those who live nearby - but they do anyway.

Radioactive waste is unlike persistent contaminants like PCBs in that radionuclides disappear over time. You have your facts exactly backwards.

You're not sounding informed. Coal ash is dangerous, as are PCBs, but unlike radioactive waste which must be encapsulated and then quarantined for millennia. If it were like these other things disposal wouldn't be such a big deal, which it is.

And coal ash magically loses its toxicity? You need to protect it for all time, unlike the nuke waste that will decay.

 

[barbos]

That's true if vessel is intact, which it is not. It was damaged.

The vessel doesn't matter in this regard.

How so?

 

[DrZoidberg]

The vessel doesn't matter in this regard.

How so?

The steering rods aren't liquid. I suggest googling the concept "critical mass". The steering rods regulate how much plutonium each plutonium unit is exposed to. By design, if the steering rods, are fully deployed, mean that there's not enough plutonium to react for critical mass. So then nothing happens. It just sits there. Forever.