Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Solution for nuclear waste? — Parallax Forums

Solution for nuclear waste?

lardomlardom Posts: 1,659
edited 2012-05-30 02:23 in General Discussion
As much as I like this subject I warn you that their solution to nuclear waste is'nt presented until the 12 minute mark. Yeah, the first part of the clip is a big yawn but I think the remainder is worth listening to.

[video=youtube_share;AAFWeIp8JT0]

Comments

  • ercoerco Posts: 20,259
    edited 2012-05-29 09:06
    I hope they're right. Maybe there's still time to save my home state of South Carolina, whose idiotic leaders have been accepting other people's nuclear waste for many moons: http://www.energy.sc.gov/index.aspx?m=8

    Nice to see a spunky young lass like that digging into a real problem! She could (and is) charming the socks off that motley TED crew, hook line & sinker. More snow, Mr. Eskimo?
  • prof_brainoprof_braino Posts: 4,313
    edited 2012-05-29 18:38
    It starts of saying "no fatalities so far". What about those six workers? I see the reports say they were "not attributed to radiation". So what was it then? Given the history of TEPCO consistently lying, and the Japanese governments consistent policy of repeating whatever they are told (as long as somebody else "claims responsibility"), I smell BS. And the reactors still burning.

    On the other hand, this sounds like the beginnings of a fail safe design.
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2012-05-29 19:31
    Disposing of radioactive wastes? Isn't it a lot cheaper to simply mix it in with your Hosomaki?

    Geiger-counter.jpg

    http://healthland.time.com/2012/05/29/bluefin-tuna-carried-fukushima-radiation-across-the-pacific-to-calif
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2012-05-29 19:59
    Although the technology may well be sound, their explanation is somewhat lacking when they say that extracting more energy from the waste fuel shortens the radioactive half-life of decay from tens of thousands of years to hundreds of years. In fact, the radioactive half-life of any isotope is a fixed characteristic of that particular isotope. You simply can't shorten it. The statement they make is true only if the fission products of their reaction have inherently shorter half-lives than those of the isotopes that produce them.

    -Phil
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2012-05-29 20:04
    ElectricAye wrote:
    Disposing of radioactive wastes? Isn't it a lot cheaper to simply mix it in with your Hosomaki?
    I was thinking more of the show "Hoarders." Instead of curing these people of their hoarding tendencies, why not see them as a natural and willing resource for nuclear waste storage? Of course, the 10,000-year half-life is a potential fly in the ointment, but maybe the hoarding gene is dominant. 10,000 years is only -- what? -- 500 generations?

    -Phil
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,259
    edited 2012-05-29 20:34
    But to reiterate, PhiPi, she's a hottie !
  • jim N8RHQjim N8RHQ Posts: 85
    edited 2012-05-29 20:40
    I wonder what molten salt they are proposing?

    Kirk Sorensen has been talking about using Thorium in a molten salt, using the same type reactor setup for a while now. And it can use waste from current reactors.

    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/D3rL08J7fDA&quot; frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    It makes a lot sense to me, and i think it's the kind of reactor that I wouldnt mind in my back yard. Not like the others in this state that scare the hell out me.
  • TtailspinTtailspin Posts: 1,326
    edited 2012-05-29 21:05
    But to reiterate, PhiPi, she's a hottie !
    She got me to sit still for twenty minutes...:love:


    Oh, and you have a good point jim N8RHQ..
  • lardomlardom Posts: 1,659
    edited 2012-05-29 21:15
    I'm guessing "Hosomaki" is made with Bluefin Tuna? :smile:
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2012-05-29 21:27
    lardom wrote: »
    I'm guessing "Hosomaki" is made with Bluefin Tuna? :smile:

    They might need to rename it to BremsstrahlungBlueFin Tuna.

    CherenkovRadiation.jpg
  • Oldbitcollector (Jeff)Oldbitcollector (Jeff) Posts: 8,091
    edited 2012-05-29 21:31
    Either too good to be true, or she should hire some bodyguards...
  • LawsonLawson Posts: 870
    edited 2012-05-29 23:18
    Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) wrote: »
    Although the technology may well be sound, their explanation is somewhat lacking when they say that extracting more energy from the waste fuel shortens the radioactive half-life of decay from tens of thousands of years to hundreds of years. In fact, the radioactive half-life of any isotope is a fixed characteristic of that particular isotope. You simply can't shorten it. The statement they make is true only if the fission products of their reaction have inherently shorter half-lives than those of the isotopes that produce them.

    -Phil

    Far as I can tell, fission products always have a shorter half-life than the parent atom. (or are stable) One of the more interesting/complete bits on this is http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=rv-mFSoZOkE Or you could always browse a table of nuclides to get a general idea.

    Lawson
  • User NameUser Name Posts: 1,451
    edited 2012-05-30 00:35
    I don't even know where to start!!!

    Without getting on my soap box, let me just say that the near complete consumption of radioactive actinides has been not just possible but eminently practical for a very long time. What has been lacking is the political will. The Carter and Clinton administrations, all freaked out over proliferation, castrated the U.S. nuclear industry. Check out the history of EBR II and IFR, just for a taste of what I'm talking about.

    I could say so much more, but it would probably be in violation of forum rules since we're not supposed to discuss politics.

    Anyway, this video makes it sound like extracting more than a percent or two of the energy in fuel rods is some sort of novel idea, and until these two kids came along we were completely clueless how to do it. But if that's the flavor of revisionist history it takes to it takes to get America's head straight, fine. I'm not proud. I'm just tired of us shooting ourselves in the foot for dopey political ends.
  • LoopyBytelooseLoopyByteloose Posts: 12,537
    edited 2012-05-30 02:23
    About 250 years ago, the majority of the world was dependent on wood for heat and energy. Then came coal. And of course, oil. Nuclear energy had great appeal in part because we had an arms race to pay for. Now it is natural gas.

    The simple fact is that no source of fuel has every been managed with full acknowledgement of its costs. But the disturbing trend with nuclear fuel is that the impact of ignoring these costs extends out to millennium.

    From the bronze age on, we have stripped resources for the sake of progress and better military technology. Until we acknowledge the underlying trends and political ambitions, we won't get things under control regardless of what we switch to.

    All energy resources tend to be exploited for profit by not acknowledging the costs involve in latter stages.

    BTW, the current nuclear waste 'de facto' policy is quite simple. If the spent fuel rods have no place to go, they stay at the power plant forever. Of course we now understand that living within a 30 KM radius of a power plant could mean a sudden relocation regardless of what authorities say. These realities are a direct result of NOT providing for the whole life of the process at the onset.

    The final destination of nuclear waste is likely to be the power plant facility.
Sign In or Register to comment.