|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
05-04-2016, 09:43 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,916
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
A distinction without a difference, IMO. In any event, some of the waste stored at Hanford is waste from commercial reactors that was destined for Yucca Mtn.
|
While this may be true, it's certainly news to me, having been to Hanford bunches of times. Only the N Reactor was dual use (military/civilian), but I doubt that a small portion of the mixed waste in the underground tanks has been specifically deemed Yucca Mountain waste. Perhaps the spent fuel is, but the spent fuel has absolutely nothing to do with the leaky tanks.
In any event, using Hanford to make an argument against the use of modern nuclear reactor designs is silly. The use of single walls underground tanks to accommodate 100 million gallons of mixed waste was due to war time exigencies (beating Hitler to the bomb and keeping ahead of the Russians). These exigencies don't exist in the civilian nuclear power industry. If anything kills nuclear, it will be the price of natural gas lowered by virtue of fracking.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
05-04-2016, 09:58 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
While this may be true, it's certainly news to me, having been to Hanford bunches of times. Only the N Reactor was dual use (military/civilian), but I doubt that a small portion of the mixed waste in the underground tanks has been specifically deemed Yucca Mountain waste. Perhaps the spent fuel is, but the spent fuel has absolutely nothing to do with the leaky tanks.
In any event, using Hanford to make an argument against the use of modern nuclear reactor designs is silly. The use of single walls underground tanks to accommodate 100 million gallons of mixed waste was due to war time exigencies (beating Hitler to the bomb and keeping ahead of the Russians). These exigencies don't exist in the civilian nuclear power industry. If anything kills nuclear, it will be the price of natural gas lowered by virtue of fracking.
|
It is true. That's what happens when you retire. And pointing to the permanent risks associated with nuclear waste storage, however it was generated, is not "silly". Or do you maintain that this is a soluble problem?
And there are indications that there are now some double wall tanks, those not built under wartime exigencies, that are leaking. Tanks that are 400 yards from the second largest river in the US.
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
Last edited by Boreas; 05-04-2016 at 10:01 AM.
|
05-04-2016, 10:19 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,916
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
It is true. That's what happens when you retire. And pointing to the permanent risks associated with nuclear waste storage, however it was generated, is not "silly". Or do you maintain that this is a soluble problem?
And there are indications that there are now some double wall tanks, those not built under wartime exigencies, that are leaking. Tanks that are 400 yards from the second largest river in the US.
|
Not all "nuclear waste storage" is the same. When one normally speaks of nuclear waste storage in the civilian nuclear industry, they're talking of spent fuel. The contents of Hanford's tanks isn't spent fuel. Conflating the two in making an argument against civilian nuclear reactors shows a lack of understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and the nature of the mess at Hanford.
That said, cheap natural gas and existing regulatory burdens have pretty much killed the civilian nuclear industry. AFAIK, the V.C. Summer plant expansion in South Carolina is pretty much the only ongoing civilian reactor project and I'm sure its owner, SCE&G, would in retrospect much preferred to have built a natural gas plant considering costs that have skyrocketed to $12 billion.
http://www.thestate.com/news/busines...e41740257.html
The handwriting is pretty much on the wall already. The NRC, which was going great guns 20 years ago with the promise of a resurgent civilian nuclear industry, is downsizing dramatically in recognition of the dynamics noted above.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
05-04-2016, 10:40 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Not all "nuclear waste storage" is the same. When one normally speaks of nuclear waste storage in the civilian nuclear industry, they're talking of spent fuel. The contents of Hanford's tanks isn't spent fuel. Conflating the two in making an argument against civilian nuclear reactors shows a lack of understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle and the nature of the mess at Hanford.
That said, cheap natural gas and existing regulatory burdens have pretty much killed the civilian nuclear industry. AFAIK, the V.C. Summer plant expansion in South Carolina is pretty much the only ongoing civilian reactor project and I'm sure its owner, SCE&G, would in retrospect much preferred to have built a natural gas plant considering costs that have skyrocketed to $12 billion.
http://www.thestate.com/news/busines...e41740257.html
The handwriting is pretty much on the wall already. The NRC, which was going great guns 20 years ago with the promise of a resurgent civilian nuclear industry, is downsizing dramatically in recognition of the dynamics noted above.
|
Yes, there's vitrification but the vitrified waste is still hot and the process results in an increased volume of waste, making storage even more problematic. And the risks associated with nuclear waste, however it was generated are both extreme and seemingly insoluble.
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
|
05-04-2016, 10:44 AM
|
|
Persona non grata
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 12,654
|
|
Part of this "Ask this old house" episode is on how Germany is moving toward energy independence. They also talk about how Germany has committed to move away from Nuclear, which they were once among the world's leaders in.
http://www.pbs.org/video/2365590403/
__________________
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
|
05-04-2016, 10:57 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,916
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
Yes, there's vitrification but the vitrified waste is still hot and the process results in an increased volume of waste, making storage even more problematic. And the risks associated with nuclear waste, however it was generated are both extreme and seemingly insoluble.
|
Vitrification at Hanford and grout stabilization at Savannah River are effectively both prototype efforts to stabilize mostly uncharacterized mixed (with process chemicals) liquid nuclear waste. Its treatment and storage really isn't comparable to (solid) fuel cycle waste. Grout stabilization and vitrification are both performed to convert the liquid waste to solid waste to preclude seepage into ground water, a process unnecessary for (solid) fuel cycle waste.
That said, Harry Reid's efforts to close Yucca Mountain have certainly set back our ability to safely store spent fuel. Because we have chosen not to reprocess spent fuel (as done in numerous other countries, including France) due to non-proliferation concerns, we are stuck with needing a large nuclear waste repository (which the civilian nuclear industry has already payed for, BTW). Now that Yucca Mountain is on mothballs, so to speak, we are stuck storing spent fuel onsite at nuclear plants across the nation, not an ideal long term solution, to be sure, not to mention a screw-job for the civilian nuclear industry.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 05-04-2016 at 10:59 AM.
|
05-04-2016, 11:07 AM
|
|
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 20,496
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Vitrification at Hanford and grout stabilization at Savannah River are effectively both prototype efforts to stabilize mostly uncharacterized mixed (with process chemicals) liquid nuclear waste. Its treatment and storage really isn't comparable to (solid) fuel cycle waste. Grout stabilization and vitrification are both performed to convert the liquid waste to solid waste to preclude seepage into ground water, a process unnecessary for (solid) fuel cycle waste.
That said, Harry Reid's efforts to close Yucca Mountain have certainly set back our ability to safely store spent fuel. Because we have chosen not to reprocess spent fuel (as done in numerous other countries, including France) due to non-proliferation concerns, we are stuck with needing a large nuclear waste repository (which the civilian nuclear industry has already payed for, BTW). Now that Yucca Mountain is on mothballs, so to speak, we are stuck storing spent fuel onsite at nuclear plants across the nation, not an ideal long term solution, to be sure, not to mention a screw-job for the civilian nuclear industry.
|
I know what vitrification is and I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for the civilian nuclear industry.
One way or the other we're "stuck" with every atom of nuclear waste ever generated.
__________________
Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast.
|
05-04-2016, 11:14 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,916
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boreas
I know what vitrification is and I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for the civilian nuclear industry.
One way or the other we're "stuck" with every atom of nuclear waste ever generated.
|
On that we agree. We can't just wish it away. That said, most people on earth get the preponderance of their lifetime radiation dose from cosmic radiation, radon and medical imagery and not from nuclear power.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
Last edited by finnbow; 05-04-2016 at 11:21 AM.
|
05-04-2016, 12:55 PM
|
|
Jigsawed
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 10,580
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Vitrification at Hanford and grout stabilization at Savannah River are effectively both prototype efforts to stabilize mostly uncharacterized mixed (with process chemicals) liquid nuclear waste. Its treatment and storage really isn't comparable to (solid) fuel cycle waste. Grout stabilization and vitrification are both performed to convert the liquid waste to solid waste to preclude seepage into ground water, a process unnecessary for (solid) fuel cycle waste.
That said, Harry Reid's efforts to close Yucca Mountain have certainly set back our ability to safely store spent fuel. Because we have chosen not to reprocess spent fuel (as done in numerous other countries, including France) due to non-proliferation concerns, we are stuck with needing a large nuclear waste repository (which the civilian nuclear industry has already payed for, BTW). Now that Yucca Mountain is on mothballs, so to speak, we are stuck storing spent fuel onsite at nuclear plants across the nation, not an ideal long term solution, to be sure, not to mention a screw-job for the civilian nuclear industry.
|
So its extreme waste problems make it very undesirable: Aiding and abetting
the OP statement.
|
05-04-2016, 01:49 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,916
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dondilion
So its extreme waste problems make it very undesirable: Aiding and abetting
the OP statement.
|
The problems in the Defense nuclear complex (e.g., Hanford, Savannah River, Oak Ridge) are legacy problems from a different time, not unlike Superfund projects where American industry worked with little concern or regulation when it came to the environment. We are now able to recognize the mess this created.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:35 AM.
|