Why I advocate for Nuclear Power

[fromderinside]

Why do you need gas centrifuges to separate plutonium from the fuel rods? They are different chemically, you don't need to do isotope separation.

Woah nellie. Even I in my cursory refreshment on the topic can see why plutonium isotopes need be separated for both safety and effectiveness of end product. For instance closed spaces like submarines become very dangerous if Plutonium 239 isn't separated from plutonium 240

http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Plutonium_Way.htm

 

[barbos]

Okay....If that is the case, then why is it that the disposal of the spent fuel rods from functioning nuclear generation facilities was, and I presume, still is, such a butthurt?

Yucca Mountain is a dead letter, I understand.

The handling of spent nuclear fuel is not in any way problematic.

https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs-reality/

The only 'problem' is that lots of people put a lot of effort into persuading people that there's a problem.

They are either lying or misinformed.

Nuclear waste is a problem in the same way that the second coming of Jesus is a problem - strictly for belivers only.

Yucca Mountain was never needed; It was a futile attempt to make something that was already safe, safe enough for people who will never be satisfied by any level of safety.

In the sixty years that the industry has existed, nobody has been harmed by spent nuclear fuel.

https://nuclear.duke-energy.com/2016/10/05/the-facts-about-used-nuclear-fuel

Spent fuel is ceramic pellets. It's not inclined to move or 'leak', and just needs a few inches of concrete to protect it from direct contact. It's dangerous in the way that a recently cast lump of iron is dangerous - it will burn you if you get realy close without protection, but all you need to stay safe is to stay away. It's less hazardous than the waste routinely dumped into the environment by other industries, including coal power plants.

And unlike any other industry, nuclear power takes responsibility for it, and looks after it.

Waste is a problem for every industry, except nuclear power, where the problems have actually been addressed and solved.

I think the main reason people are worried about the spent nuclear fuel is because of a misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. They hear that the nuclear fuel will remain radioactive for a billion years. What they're imagining is the fallout from Chernobyl or Hiroshima for a billion years. As if anybody getting close to it will be vaporised during this time.

The reality is of course that the nuclear stuff that is screamingly radioactive will all be gone in a couple of weeks. Just after half a year nuclear waste is mostly harmless. That's how half-life works. The more radioactive (ie dangerous) it is the faster it becomes harmless. The part of radioactive waste that will stay radioactive for a billion years we can probably eat by the spoonfull and we'll be fine. Still not a good idea. But nothing to lose any sleep over.

I think you are the one who is misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. People are not worried about most radioactive waste. They are worried about stuff with half life longer than few years. And I would like you to see eating spoonful of something with a half life let say million years

 

[skepticalbip]

I think the main reason people are worried about the spent nuclear fuel is because of a misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. They hear that the nuclear fuel will remain radioactive for a billion years. What they're imagining is the fallout from Chernobyl or Hiroshima for a billion years. As if anybody getting close to it will be vaporised during this time.

The reality is of course that the nuclear stuff that is screamingly radioactive will all be gone in a couple of weeks. Just after half a year nuclear waste is mostly harmless. That's how half-life works. The more radioactive (ie dangerous) it is the faster it becomes harmless. The part of radioactive waste that will stay radioactive for a billion years we can probably eat by the spoonfull and we'll be fine. Still not a good idea. But nothing to lose any sleep over.

I think you are the one who is misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. People are not worried about most radioactive waste. They are worried about stuff with half life longer than few years. And I would like you to see eating spoonful of something with a half life let say million years

Everything we eat contains radioactive Carbon-14 which has a half life of 5730 years. Our biology needs iron (many people take iron supplements daily) and iron contains iron-60 which has a half life of about 2 million years. Bananas are a common food that contains potassium-40, a radioactive isotope with a half life of about 1.25 billion years.

The longer the half life the less dangerous it is to humanity. It is the stuff with a very short half life that we need to be careful with.

 

[Peez]

barbos:
I think you are the one who is misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. People are not worried about most radioactive waste. They are worried about stuff with half life longer than few years. And I would like you to see eating spoonful of something with a half life let say million years

To put it very simply, radioactive isotopes are radioactive because the nuclei are unstable and break down. This break down releases radiation and leaves a different nucleus (often a different element). The 'half life' is the time it takes for one half of the nuclei to break down in a given sample. The shorter the half life, the faster they are breaking down, and the greater the amount of radiation released. Isotopes with very long half lifes break down very slowly and release little radiation.

Peez

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do you need gas centrifuges to separate plutonium from the fuel rods? They are different chemically, you don't need to do isotope separation.

Woah nellie. Even I in my cursory refreshment on the topic can see why plutonium isotopes need be separated for both safety and effectiveness of end product. For instance closed spaces like submarines become very dangerous if Plutonium 239 isn't separated from plutonium 240

http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Plutonium_Way.htm

If you were to use ordinary spent fuel rods you would be right.

That's why you change the fuel frequently--to avoid the buildup of Pu-240 that will mess up your bomb. Much easier than the centrifuge route.

 

[barbos]

I think the main reason people are worried about the spent nuclear fuel is because of a misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. They hear that the nuclear fuel will remain radioactive for a billion years. What they're imagining is the fallout from Chernobyl or Hiroshima for a billion years. As if anybody getting close to it will be vaporised during this time.

The reality is of course that the nuclear stuff that is screamingly radioactive will all be gone in a couple of weeks. Just after half a year nuclear waste is mostly harmless. That's how half-life works. The more radioactive (ie dangerous) it is the faster it becomes harmless. The part of radioactive waste that will stay radioactive for a billion years we can probably eat by the spoonfull and we'll be fine. Still not a good idea. But nothing to lose any sleep over.

I think you are the one who is misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. People are not worried about most radioactive waste. They are worried about stuff with half life longer than few years. And I would like you to see eating spoonful of something with a half life let say million years

Everything we eat contains radioactive Carbon-14 which has a half life of 5730 years. Our biology needs iron (many people take iron supplements daily) and iron contains iron-60 which has a half life of about 2 million years. Bananas are a common food that contains potassium-40, a radioactive isotope with a half life of about 1.25 billion years.

The longer the half life the less dangerous it is to humanity. It is the stuff with a very short half life that we need to be careful with.

So you do misunderstand how it works.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think you are the one who is misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. People are not worried about most radioactive waste. They are worried about stuff with half life longer than few years. And I would like you to see eating spoonful of something with a half life let say million years

1) The stuff with a half life of a million years is pretty much all usable as fuel. It should be recycled, not sent to the waste pile.

2) I can't find anything with a half life of a million years that would be appropriate to eat. The closest I can find is iron-60 that is something over 2 million years but while iron is necessary in our diet a spoonful of it would be too much. Nothing else with a half life measured in megayears is appropriate to eat. It's a beta emitter but beyond that I am having no luck finding any data to see how much radiation you would actually absorb from it.

What most people, apparently including you, don't realize about radioactivity is that there is an inverse relationship between half life and the threat it poses. The energetic stuff almost always has a short half life and besides that, the longer it takes to decay the less decay there will be at any one time.

 

[barbos]

barbos:
I think you are the one who is misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. People are not worried about most radioactive waste. They are worried about stuff with half life longer than few years. And I would like you to see eating spoonful of something with a half life let say million years

To put it very simply, radioactive isotopes are radioactive because the nuclei are unstable and break down. This break down releases radiation and leaves a different nucleus (often a different element). The 'half life' is the time it takes for one half of the nuclei to break down in a given sample. The shorter the half life, the faster they are breaking down, and the greater the amount of radiation released. Isotopes with very long half lifes break down very slowly and release little radiation.

Peez

Right, except isotopes with a half life of a million years are radioactive enough to kill you rather fast (assuming tangible amount of it)
So it's long lasting isotopes which is a problem for nuclear waste. You have to keep them contained pretty much indefinitely, ... or dilute them in the ocean, but good luck selling that as safe and proper way.

 

[bilby]

barbos:
I think you are the one who is misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. People are not worried about most radioactive waste. They are worried about stuff with half life longer than few years. And I would like you to see eating spoonful of something with a half life let say million years

To put it very simply, radioactive isotopes are radioactive because the nuclei are unstable and break down. This break down releases radiation and leaves a different nucleus (often a different element). The 'half life' is the time it takes for one half of the nuclei to break down in a given sample. The shorter the half life, the faster they are breaking down, and the greater the amount of radiation released. Isotopes with very long half lifes break down very slowly and release little radiation.

Peez

Right, except isotopes with a half life of a million years are radioactive enough to kill you rather fast (assuming tangible amount of it)
So it's long lasting isotopes which is a problem for nuclear waste. You have to keep them contained pretty much indefinitely, ... or dilute them in the ocean, but good luck selling that as safe and proper way.

So let's assume ad argumentum that you are right. Let's cave to the pressure and keep them contained indefinitely. What does that imply? Well, we have a bunch of fission products at Oklo that have been around for two billion years, despite no attempts at containment. How far did the contamination spread, from a bunch of stuff just buried in the ground without care, consideration, or oversight?

The Oklo natural reactor, Gabon, permits study of fission-produced elemental behavior in a natural geologic environment. The uranium ore that sustained fission reactions formed about 2 billion years before present (BYBP), and the reactor was operative for about 5 × 10⁵ yrs between about 1.95 to 2 BYBP. The many tons of fission products can, for the most part, be studied for their abundance and distribution today. Since reactor shutdown, many fissiogenic elements have not migrated from host pitchblende, and several others have migrated only a few tens of meters from the reactor ore. Only Xe and Kr have apparently been largely removed from the reactor zones. An element by element assessment of the Oklo rocks' ability to retain the fission products, and actinides and radiogenic Pb and Bi as well, leads to the conclusion that no widespread migration of the elements occurred. This suggests that rocks with more favorable geologic characteristics are indeed well suited for consideration for the storage of radioactive waste.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02380513

So basically, burying nuclear waste in the mines the uranium ore came from is adequate to contain all the waste within a few tens of metres of the site, for ~2 billion years. Obviously a carefully designed burial could do even better than that. Only Xenon and Krypton get away - and as noble gasses, these disperse in the air and are diluted to harmlessness almost immediately.

Nuclear waste is just a non-issue. The major points of difference between the hazardous material in nuclear waste, and the hazardous material in the waste from burning coal, are that there is FAR less nuclear waste; and it goes away over time - while coal waste is dangerous forever.

This is the worst-case scenario from the externally reviewed Posiva 2009 Biosphere Assessment Report (Hjerpe et al. 2010, p.137 in particular). […] Note that even if the canisters begin to leak immediately, the maximum exposure occurs only after some 10 000 years (AD 12 000) as it will take time for the radioactive materials to migrate to the surface. After AD 12 000, doses will fall steadily.

https://thoughtscapism.com/2017/11/04/nuclear-waste-ideas-vs-reality/

 

[barbos]

Right, except isotopes with a half life of a million years are radioactive enough to kill you rather fast (assuming tangible amount of it)
So it's long lasting isotopes which is a problem for nuclear waste. You have to keep them contained pretty much indefinitely, ... or dilute them in the ocean, but good luck selling that as safe and proper way.

So let's assume ad argumentum that you are right.

No need to assume, cause I am right. Half life a million years means a 1 gram of the stuff would have about 100million decays per second.
compare to normal level geiger counter register is about 1 count per second. You still want to eat a spoonful of it?

Let's cave to the pressure and keep them contained indefinitely. What does that imply?

It means large amount of space you need maintain and guard. Or less space but expensive reprocessing in order to separate it. It will cost some money.

Well, we have a bunch of fission products at Oklo that have been around for two billion years,

It has been dead for billion years I think. So long lasting decay products has decayed sufficiently enough.

 

[fromderinside]

From models to real world. Hanford site leakage has entered water tables allowing it to read the Columbia river north and east of the site raising water temperature in the river from 1 to 4 degrees C. endangering Salmon fisheries on Columbia and tributaries a not small effect.

Yes, Hanford is responsible for about 2/3 of plutonium in US arsenal which is a big fraction. Still leakage is more likely to enter water tables than to reach ground levels which is an obvious flaw in the Finnish studies, let alone the fact that at Hanford leakage began almost immediately after containment rather than the minimum 1000 years cited in the Finnish study.

These two observations make the Finnish study fairly useless as a predictor as well as this report: https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/leaking-legacy

Which concludes

In a scathing report last December the U.S. Government Accountability Office predicted further cost overruns and delays, and expressed serious doubt that the DOE and Bechtel could build and run the plant successfully. Meanwhile, Washington and Oregon officials, environmental organizations, and Hanford’s citizen advisory council all want quick action to address tank leaks, starting with construction of new waste tanks. Ultimately, finding a lasting solution for Hanford’s radioactive waste will take longer than the Cold War that produced it.

I haven't read Russian studies of Japanese studies following their nuclear site decommission and disaster abatements beyond impressions I got from popular press suggesting tens of billions of dollars and perhaps more than 100 years remediation will be necessary to make these sites usable by humans again.

Rosey studies do not a solution make.

Provide substantive evidence that humans are more rational than I am presuming would be the best way to counter the fear nuclear industry is confronting.

 

[bilby]

From models to real world. Hanford site leakage has entered water tables allowing it to read the Columbia river north and east of the site raising water temperature in the river from 1 to 4 degrees C. endangering Salmon fisheries on Columbia and tributaries a not small effect.

Yes, Hanford is responsible for about 2/3 of plutonium in US arsenal which is a big fraction. Still leakage is more likely to entere szter tables than to reach ground levels which is an obvious flaw in the Finnish studies, let alone the fact that at Hanford leakage began almost immediately after containment.

These two observations make the Finnish study fairly useless as a predictor as well as this report: https://www.sciencehistory.org/distillations/magazine/leaking-legacy


Which concludes

In a scathing report last December the U.S. Government Accountability Office predicted further cost overruns and delays, and expressed serious doubt that the DOE and Bechtel could build and run the plant successfully. Meanwhile, Washington and Oregon officials, environmental organizations, and Hanford’s citizen advisory council all want quick action to address tank leaks, starting with construction of new waste tanks. Ultimately, finding a lasting solution for Hanford’s radioactive waste will take longer than the Cold War that produced it.

Rosey studies do not a solution make.

You are still talking about weapons.

This thread is not about weapons.

Do you derail discussions about cars with posts about how horrible flame-throwers are too?

 

[fromderinside]

Yes I am talking about weapons.

Weapons are the thing keeping nuclear power from being used to 'solve' our energy-environment problem.

Still clean up is a problem for both industries. So that substantial part of my latest post should be of some value to those of you who actually want to find ways to overcome human fear of fission. Don't you agree that it is stupid to imply that radiation rising to ground is a false criteria for measuring contamination when it's obvious the significant issue is with water table contamination.

What strikes me as false about this thread is that the main issue for exploiting nuclear power is overcoming fear is a social science thing, it's not a physical science thing.

 

[bilby]

Yes I am talking about weapons.

Weapons are the thing keeping nuclear power from being used to 'solve' our energy-environment problem.

No, stupidity and propaganda are - and conflating power with weapons is both. If you can't be part of the solution, you could at least stop being part of the problem.

Still clean up is a problem for both industries.

Nope. It's a problem for the military, because they didn't give a shit back in the 1950s and 60s.

Cleanup is not, and never has been, a problem for the civilian nuclear industry.

So that substantial part of my latest post should be of some value to those of you who actually want to find ways to overcome human fear of fission.

On the contrary. You are adding to the problem; That's the opposite of being of value.

Don't you agree that it is stupid to imply that radiation rising to ground is a false criteria for measuring contamination when it's obvious the significant issue is with water table contamination.

That's not an issue. There is not now, nor is there ever likely to be contamination of ground water by civilian nuclear waste.

What strikes me as false about this thread is that the main issue for exploiting nuclear power is overcoming fear is a social science thing, it's not a physical science thing.

Which makes your counterfactual fearmongering even more stupid, harmful and unhelpful.

And as you would know if you have read the rest of the thread, I am aware that the major issue is not about facts. This thread is a response to someone who asked me why I advocate for nuclear power. I wasn't trying to show HOW I advocate for nuclear power.

Fact free propaganda is the opponent we face; And can be defeated without resorting to facts. But there are lots of people who are smarter than that, and that minority deserve to be provided with the information to make a reasoned choice.

For everyone else there's this:

 

[fromderinside]

I appreciate the fact that you are trying to reason with me without excessive denigrations.

You are wrong about almost everything important about nuclear fear and your approach has about zero possibility of winning the day.

Militaries recover plutonium form civilian activities is one of the reason we'r so paranoid about any nuclear activity by any even moderately aggressive nations.

The japanese demonstrate the failures of their nuclear waste program with each tsunami they receive is evidence enough that civilian regulation and waste control are not well though out or executed. So your posistion that trher isn't a problem with power generation waste control and management is fertilizer..

Providing ground encountering migration is not a sane argument for less fear about waste and waste containment. As with chemicals the main problems are over use of water and water table contamination from ground facility activities for nuclear..

As we can see from the structure of recent agreements the main things are trust and verification. So when NK is seen to be continuing improvements to nuclear production facilities after their 'agreement' with president Stupid that little gambit is about to bite the dust as well.

there is so little trust between tribe, and tribes are what we should be discussing here, that tit is almost impossible slow, much less stop or reverse proliferation. We're going to be a nuclear world . Not fear, just simple analysis of behaviors of leaders under stress.

It is essential to get the bst argument out there, arguments that can't be debunked by just pointing to flawed presumptions that are clearly and demonstrably not correct.

It is my view that we won';t get anywhere unless we begin to take into account actual mechanism of operation and leadership among nations. So far all you have is the facts re otherwise. yes they are, but, with the mechanisms with which we deal with them not asccounted there is almost no chance fear can be reduced.

As for goals of nuclear power replacement of organic fuels we need to taek account of existing mechanics of trade and national behavior and we need to address fear about melting and temperature as well since we probably are going to be confronted with both which have been higher before present period.

It's bad enough that I need look up thing to refresh myy recollectio without this transcription problem.

Gad it's hard to write when I can barely see the screen well enough to recognize the errors I'm making in text generations. So having seen that I go to bed to awake tomorrow with better glasses and clearer mind to continue.

later.

 

[Peez]

barbos:
I think you are the one who is misunderstanding of how nuclear half life works. People are not worried about most radioactive waste. They are worried about stuff with half life longer than few years. And I would like you to see eating spoonful of something with a half life let say million years

To put it very simply, radioactive isotopes are radioactive because the nuclei are unstable and break down. This break down releases radiation and leaves a different nucleus (often a different element). The 'half life' is the time it takes for one half of the nuclei to break down in a given sample. The shorter the half life, the faster they are breaking down, and the greater the amount of radiation released. Isotopes with very long half lifes break down very slowly and release little radiation.

Peez

Right, except isotopes with a half life of a million years are radioactive enough to kill you rather fast (assuming tangible amount of it)
So it's long lasting isotopes which is a problem for nuclear waste. You have to keep them contained pretty much indefinitely, ... or dilute them in the ocean, but good luck selling that as safe and proper way.

Perhaps it would be useful to focus on a specific example of an isotope with a half life of about 500,000 years that will kill a human quickly (and how much would do so).

Peez

 

[barbos]

Right, except isotopes with a half life of a million years are radioactive enough to kill you rather fast (assuming tangible amount of it)
So it's long lasting isotopes which is a problem for nuclear waste. You have to keep them contained pretty much indefinitely, ... or dilute them in the ocean, but good luck selling that as safe and proper way.

Perhaps it would be useful to focus on a specific example of an isotope with a half life of about 500,000 years that will kill a human quickly (and how much would do so).

Peez

Well, I have already. 1 gram is 100mil decays per second - quick death.
1 milligram (ingested) will give you 100K decays, natural level according to wikipedia is around 4K. So I would say 10 milligram may not klill you but would increase cancer chances significantly.

 

[Peez]

Right, except isotopes with a half life of a million years are radioactive enough to kill you rather fast (assuming tangible amount of it)
So it's long lasting isotopes which is a problem for nuclear waste. You have to keep them contained pretty much indefinitely, ... or dilute them in the ocean, but good luck selling that as safe and proper way.

Perhaps it would be useful to focus on a specific example of an isotope with a half life of about 500,000 years that will kill a human quickly (and how much would do so).

Peez

Well, I have already.

I am sorry but I just searched through this thread and could not find where you presented a specific example of an isotope with a half life of about 500,000 years that will kill a human quickly, or how much would do so.

1 gram is 100mil decays per second - quick death.
1 milligram (ingested) will give you 100K decays, natural level according to wikipedia is around 4K. So I would say 10 milligram may not klill you but would increase cancer chances significantly.

I am sorry but what isotope is this?

Peez

 

[Juma]

Right, except isotopes with a half life of a million years are radioactive enough to kill you rather fast (assuming tangible amount of it)
So it's long lasting isotopes which is a problem for nuclear waste. You have to keep them contained pretty much indefinitely, ... or dilute them in the ocean, but good luck selling that as safe and proper way.

Perhaps it would be useful to focus on a specific example of an isotope with a half life of about 500,000 years that will kill a human quickly (and how much would do so).

Peez

Well, I have already. 1 gram is 100mil decays per second - quick death.
1 milligram (ingested) will give you 100K decays, natural level according to wikipedia is around 4K. So I would say 10 milligram may not klill you but would increase cancer chances significantly.

do you have a real example? which element? which type of radiation?

 

[barbos]

Well, I have already.

I am sorry but I just searched through this thread and could not find where you presented a specific example of an isotope with a half life of about 500,000 years that will kill a human quickly, or how much would do so.

Search again.

1 gram is 100mil decays per second - quick death.
1 milligram (ingested) will give you 100K decays, natural level according to wikipedia is around 4K. So I would say 10 milligram may not klill you but would increase cancer chances significantly.

I am sorry but what isotope is this?

The one with a half life time of 1 million years, you can't read?