Recycle Nuclear Waste?
Jim Blair
The current controversy over Yucca Mountain Nevada as the
nations nuclear waste dump suggests to me that an alternative
solution be explored.
When nuclear power plants were first built, the idea was to
use the U-235 enriched fuel rods once and then store the
"waste" on site until a long term storage facility was built.
The "waste" would be highly radioactive and dangerous for many
thousands of years, so no one was eager to have it stored in
their own back yard. In the decades since then the spent fuel
rods have remained in pools near the reactors awaiting long term
disposal even as the power companies are paying a charge for
that disposal.
Since then, several things have happened that might alter the
original plan. First nuclear opponents have gained strength,
and combined with various terrorists could make moving the spent
fuel to any storage location much more dangerous and expensive
than was estimated at the time.
But also separation technology and the ability to handle radioactive
materials with robots has greatly improved. A "spent" fuel rod
still has about 99% of its potential energy (and potential electric
power production) remaining in it. In fact it is this "potential"
(much in the form of plutonium isotopes) that make the spent rod
hazardous for those thousands of years. The fuel rod is "spent"
not because it has "run out of fuel" but because reaction products
(like strontium and barium isotopes) are shutting down the chain
reaction. While a fresh fuel rod has very little plutonium, one that
is near the end of its first- pass life is getting about 1/3 of its
energy output from the plutonium that has been created in it
(from uranium isotopes) during its stay in the reactor core.
There was much concern over "reprocessing" spent fuel rods to
utilize their remaining fuel and to reduce the hazard of the
remaining waste products. It was assumed that a few large
reprocessing plants would be needed to do this, and that
transporting spent rods to, and new fuel from, the plants would
be too dangerous. And that maybe some of the plutonium removed
from the rods would be diverted to unauthorized uses.
My question: could small robot operated fuel rod reprocessing
modules be made so that one at each nuclear reactor site could
remove the "bad" waste products that block the chain reaction?
Thus the "spent" fuel rods currently stored there could be
converted into new (probably mixed oxide) fuel rods? Thus
current power plants could continue to operate for hundreds of
years without receiving any more fuel from outside, by consuming
most of the hazardous material in their current supply of "spent"
fuel waste.
No need to ship tons of dangerous waste from all over the country
to a single location. And at each power plant the "final" waste
products (mostly Ba, Ce, I Sr isotopes) that cannot be used as
fuel could be stored on location for the few hundred years it
takes for them to decay to the level where transport to a final
storage place would not be a problem.
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Mike Darrett
> current power plants could continue to operate for hundreds of
> years without receiving any more fuel from outside, by consuming
> most of the hazardous material in their current supply of "spent"
> fuel waste.
They're called "breeder" reactors. The French have them. These
reactors are banned in the US because the politicians are afraid of
them.
google: breeder reactor france
http://www.atomicinsights.com/oct95/Pu_oct95.html
Breeders also tend to use liquid sodium as a coolant, and this becomes
radioactive too...
Don't forget that in a nuclear reactor, you don't just have used fuel
rods as waste. Anything those neutrons hit has the potential to
become radioactive... which includes the concrete reactor walls, etc.
Mike
Jim Blair
><snip>
>
>> current power plants could continue to operate for hundreds of
>> years without receiving any more fuel from outside, by consuming
>> most of the hazardous material in their current supply of "spent"
>> fuel waste.
>
darr...@yahoo.com (Mike Darrett) wrote:
>
>They're called "breeder" reactors. The French have them. These
>reactors are banned in the US because the politicians are afraid of
>them.
>
>google: breeder reactor france
>http://www.atomicinsights.com/oct95/Pu_oct95.html
>
>Breeders also tend to use liquid sodium as a coolant, and this becomes
>radioactive too...
Hi,
What I am suggesting is not a full blown breeder that runs on plutonium,
but a sort of "partial breeder" that runs on mixed uranium and plutonium.
And that avoids the large scale reprocessing plant.
I picture a trailer sized unit that would be fabricated
in one location and units shipped by truck to each power plant.
Spent rods would go into one end, and out the other would come
new mixed oxide fuel rods and glass balls containing the unusable
waste.
Gregory L. Hansen
Most of that would be short-lived, it should be pretty safe after a year,
and greatly reduced within weeks. The long-lived radioactivity mainly
comes from the actinides, which is basically another name for nuclear
fuel.
A problem is that neutron poisons also build up, and those need to be
removed before the fuel can be used. Aside from that, I don't think
there's much reason to try too hard to purify the metals of interest,
except maybe for structural reasons. But the fuel pellets crack anyway,
and the cladding keeps them in place.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
John Wilson
Mike Darrett wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>current power plants could continue to operate for hundreds of
>>years without receiving any more fuel from outside, by consuming
>>most of the hazardous material in their current supply of "spent"
>>fuel waste.
>>
>
>
> They're called "breeder" reactors. The French have them.
The French had the world's only commercial-scale breeder reactor, the
Superphenix plant at Creys-Malville. I say "had" because the plant has
been permanently shut down; see:
http://www.francenuc.org/en_sites/rhone_crey_e.htm
I visited the plant in 1990. At that time, the coolant was contaminated
by an air leak, and an extremely long and costly cleanup effort was
underway. They didn't restart until 1994, and then only as a research
program, not for commercial generation and fuel production. The
government yanked their license in 1997 and order CEA (the French Atomic
Energy Commission) to permanently shut the plant down. They have had a
lot of nasty problems with this plant, nothing dangerous off site, but
very expensive and technically difficult. It has had less than one
full-power year of operation since its initial startup in 1985. I doubt
that any commercial generation company would touch one of these with a
10-foot hotstick (electrical background betrayed ;-).
BTW, the Japanese breeder pilot breeder reactor, the 280MW Monju plant,
is also shut town, due to a sodium leak. God knows when it will be
cleaned up and restart, if ever. See:
http://www.jnc.go.jp/zmonju/mjweb/index.htm
> These
> reactors are banned in the US because the politicians are afraid of
> them.
No, the planned Clinch River commercial breeder reactor did not go
forward because as the design progressed, the costs got out of hand, and
the potential owners pulled out. But after the disastrous French
experience with Superphenix, I doubt if either any potential operators
or the government will want anything to do with this technology. It's
probably right up there with fusion in difficulty, though the problem
with fusion is that we don't know how to do it (outside an H-bomb),
while the problems with breeding are of an engineering nature; ugly,
ill-behaved materials, extremely high costs, very long downtimes when
something happens, etc.
73,
JohnW
Paul F. Dietz
> It's
> probably right up there with fusion in difficulty, though the problem
> with fusion is that we don't know how to do it (outside an H-bomb),
> while the problems with breeding are of an engineering nature; ugly,
> ill-behaved materials, extremely high costs, very long downtimes when
> something happens, etc.
The problem appears to be with liquid sodium. Liquid lead-bismuth
may be a better idea for LMFBRs.
The deeper problem is that uranium is inexpensive and will likely remain
so for some time, particularly if seawater extraction of uranium
becomes affordable.
Paul
Ray L
Tim Perdue <t...@gotocity.com> wrote in message
news:JsOH8.77108$L76.130659@rwcrnsc53...
> X-No-archive: yes
> "Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> news:acjt7n$c7h$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
> I am not even remotely a nuclear expert, just a bystander who supports
> nuclear power strongly.
>
> It seems to me, that adding this recycling capability to the plant would
> greatly increase the cost of the plant, and the facility would be used
only
> once ever 18-24 months when the plant needs to be refueled.
http://www.ans.neep.wisc.edu/~ans/point_source/AEI/jun96/PHWR.html
and it burns what others throw away
Paul F. Dietz
> Without breeder reactors, is there a danger of running out of usable uranium
> in the future?
The Japanese claim to have a technology for extracting uranium from
seawater at a cost that would be compatible with a once-through
fuel cycle. The oceans contain about 4 billion tons of uranium.
Paul
Don Libby
>
> Mike Darrett wrote:
>
> > They're called "breeder" reactors. The French have them.
>
> The French had the world's only commercial-scale breeder reactor, the
> Superphenix plant at Creys-Malville. I say "had" because the plant has
> been permanently shut down; see:
>
> http://www.francenuc.org/en_sites/rhone_crey_e.htm
John, Super-Phoenix is shut down, but aren't they still operating
a smaller fast breeder reactor called "Phenix"?
http://www.world-nuclear.org/nb/nb98/nb9823.htm
[NB98.23-9] France's Phenix fast breeder reactor restarted at
the end of May. The decision to reopen the unit was
made following
the French government's decision to close the
country's Superphenix
FBR. Phenix has been authorised to operate until 2004.
(Uranium
Institute, 9 June;
-dl
Take off UrPants to reply
before we start mining yucca mountain for its precious contents.
Jeffrey Siegal
> Can you say how do breeder reactors fit into reprocessing and the MOX fuels
> I have read about lately? Or is it a completely separate issue?
MOX is a separate issue from breeders. The idea with MOX is to use
reprocessed Plutonium for part of the fuel in a conventional reactor.
Jeffrey Siegal
> It seems to me, that adding this recycling capability to the plant would
> greatly increase the cost of the plant, and the facility would be used only
> once ever 18-24 months when the plant needs to be refueled.
This is purely hypothetical, but many (most?) of today's plant sites
have multiple reactors. Assuming a plant site with one reprocessing
facility and several reactors, each of which is refueled at a different
time, the reprocessor could be used much more often, perhaps even
continuously.
jim blair
Tim Perdue wrote:
> It seems to me, that adding this recycling capability to the plant would
> greatly increase the cost of the plant, and the facility would be used only
> once ever 18-24 months when the plant needs to be refueled.
Hi,
The type of trailer sized module I am picturing would cost very little relative
to the cost of the power plant. Yes, it would need to operate only part of the
time AFTER the stored backlog of spent fuel had been processed. The main
advantage I see is not in extending the life of the fuel (but that would become
a factor if/when wide sacle use of nuclear power began to deplete the uranium)
but rather as a way to avoid the long term waste storage problem, and the
transport problem.
--
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
jim blair
Ray L wrote:
>
> http://www.ans.neep.wisc.edu/~ans/point_source/AEI/jun96/PHWR.html
>
> and it burns what others throw away
Hi,
Good URL. This type of reactor would fit in with my on site reprocessing
modules.
Extending the fuel life is nice, but the waste recycling feature is even more
of an advantage. Note that the Greens in Germany are forcing the adoption of
coal as the main energy source by blocking shipments of spent nueclear fuel as
a way to drive up the cost of nuclear.
--
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Karl Johanson
> X-No-archive: yes
> "Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
> news:3CEFC21A...@dls.net...
> ocean will get more and more diluted and progressively more expensive to
> recover the uranium.
Rivers renew the oceans supply of uranium.
> Still, it seems there is enough uranium to power the world for far longer
> than we need to care about.
Well said.
Karl Johanson
Paul F. Dietz
> > ...Assuming you could capture it all. As you sieve out the uranium, the
> > ocean will get more and more diluted and progressively more expensive to
> > recover the uranium.
>
> Rivers renew the oceans supply of uranium.
Not sufficiently quickly to matter for a global once-through
fuel cycle, though.
Paul
Timothy Miller
wrote:
>X-No-archive: yes
>"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>news:acjt7n$c7h$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
>
>I am not even remotely a nuclear expert, just a bystander who supports
>nuclear power strongly.
>
Maybe not, from http://www.anl.gov/OPA/frontiers/d1ee4.html:
A nuclear fuel cycle based on Argonne’s pyroprocessing technology
offers substantial improvements in waste management, proliferation
resistance and economic potential compared to conventional processing
technologies used overseas.
Fuel recycling: The key step is "electrorefining," which removes
uranium, plutonium and the other actinides (highly radioactive
elements with long half-lives) from the spent fuel, while keeping them
mixed together so the plutonium cannot be used directly in weapons.
Spent fuel from reactors that use metallic uranium fuel can go
straight to the electrorefiner. Spent fuel from commercial reactors,
which consists of uranium oxide, would first undergo an "oxide
reduction" step to convert it to metallic form. Next, the uranium and
other actinides are sent to the cathode processor to remove residual
salts and cadmium from electrorefining. The actinides are cast into
fresh fuel, while the salts and cadmium are recycled back into the
electrorefiner.
Nuclear waste: The waste consists of two forms. The stainless steel
cladding that encased the spent fuel is combined with noble metal
fission products in a metallic waste form. Salts and other fission
products are combined with zeolites and converted into a ceramic
waste. Both metal and ceramic waste forms are highly radioactive when
they are created, but in less than 400 years, their radioactivity
decays so they are less toxic than the natural ore the original fuel
came from.
Also try searching on IFR (integrated fast reactor). This is a program
killed by Clinton in 94. The proposed reactors were to do all
processing on-site, with no actinides ever leaving the plant. You will
get a lot of hits on activist sites, since they hate any technology
that might reduce waste production because they hope to shut down
nuclear energy via the waste issue.
>It seems to me, that adding this recycling capability to the plant would
>greatly increase the cost of the plant, and the facility would be used only
>once ever 18-24 months when the plant needs to be refueled.
>
>So it seems to be a big strike against economy of nuclear power.
>
>As far as storage of the waste, the sensible thing is to store the
>recyclable material somewhere (perhaps in pools as it is today) until a
>future date when economics dictates that it is cheaper to recycle the fuel
>than to dig for new fuel.
>
>Yucca could also be shut down - the non-recyclable waste can be melted with
>glass and stored in clay under the seafloor. No one lives in the ocean, so
>no one could complain about this, and it is geologically stable anyway.
>
>Tim
>
>
Karl Johanson
As I recall, the rivers add enough for us to get 10 times our current total
power usage (not just electricity, but also transportation, heating, etc.)
if we use breeders. Without breaders that would be around 10% of all our
power without reducing the ocean's supply of uranium at all. Even if we did
use 100 times as much for once through, that would leave us tens of
thousands of years to develop breeders before we depleted the ocean's
uranium significantly.
I've never seen estimates for thorium in the oceans.
Karl Johanson
Paul F. Dietz
> I've never seen estimates for thorium in the oceans.
About two orders of magnitude less. Thorium isn't very
soluble.
Paul
Martin Brown
John Wilson wrote:
> Mike Darrett wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> >
> >>current power plants could continue to operate for hundreds of
> >>years without receiving any more fuel from outside, by consuming
> >>most of the hazardous material in their current supply of "spent"
> >>fuel waste.
> >
> > They're called "breeder" reactors. The French have them.
>
> The French had the world's only commercial-scale breeder reactor, the
> Superphenix plant at Creys-Malville. I say "had" because the plant has
> been permanently shut down; see:
>
> http://www.francenuc.org/en_sites/rhone_crey_e.htm
There was also the experimental UK one at Dounray (placed at the extreme
north of Scotland) which is now about to be the world's most expensive
caustic soda plant ;-)
http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/decomm.htm
Liquid sodium cooling sounded OK in theory until you tried to run with it in
bulk.
Recycling nuclear waste still leaves you with a stream of pretty horrible
neutron rich and highly radioactive fission products in the gunge. A few
sites well controlled, properly supervised and operated is probably better
than having lots of cowboys recycling it in their garden sheds.
Pity there still isn't a half decent energy efficient process for rendering
the byproducts reasonably inert for the geological timescales that are
needed.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Gregg E.
engine. I usually use www.dogpile.com (It searches several other
engines, including google.)
A process that's apparently been forgotten and swept under the rug is
the Synrock process. Here's the only mention I've been able to find
of it in relation to radioactive waste storage.
http://www.em.doe.gov/lowlevel/attachc.html
The only other place I've seen info on Synrock (synthetic rock) was
in either Popular Science or Popular Mechanics wayyyy back in the 80's.
It's a fairly basic process. Waste material is mixed into a cement like
slurry and poured into corrugated steel cans. The cans are then placed
inside an induction heating coil. When red hot the cans are smashed
flat like crushing an aluminum soda can. The article had pictures of
test samples of the synrock material and a glass material the DOE was
also looking at. Before exposure to high temperature water they both
looked good, afterwards the glass samples had broken up while the
synrock samples had only changed color a bit. The company had set up
a small process demonstration plant but hadn't been allowed to do
a batch with actual radioactive waste.
Now guess which process _wasn't_ chosen by the government.
I hope the engineers and geologists were able to check out the
internal structure of Yucca Mt. better than they were able to with
Cheyenne Mt. where NORAD is located. Cheyenne Mt. has a fractured
core which is assumed could not take a direct hit by a nuclear
bomb, at least as far as they've been able to determine with computer
simulations. ;) Let's hope it's never "tested" with an actual bomb
hit. (Though knowing that "secret" makes Robert A. Heinlein's
"The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" an even better book to read!)
John Wilson
Paul F. Dietz wrote:
...
>
> The deeper problem is that uranium is inexpensive and will likely remain
> so for some time, particularly if seawater extraction of uranium
> becomes affordable.
>
> Paul
>
That's a problem?
73,
JohnW
John Wilson
Don Libby wrote:
> John Wilson wrote:
>
>>Mike Darrett wrote:
>>
>>
>>>They're called "breeder" reactors. The French have them.
>>>
>>The French had the world's only commercial-scale breeder reactor, the
>>Superphenix plant at Creys-Malville. I say "had" because the plant has
>>been permanently shut down; see:
>>
>>http://www.francenuc.org/en_sites/rhone_crey_e.htm
>>JohnW
>>
>
> John, Super-Phoenix is shut down, but aren't they still operating
> a smaller fast breeder reactor called "Phenix"?
...
Yes, AFAIK, but that's a research facility and only generates a couple
hundred megawatts. It's also a very different design from Super-Phenix
and apparently the design doesn't scale well, kind of like General
Atomics' HTGRs, where Peach Bottom 1, Fort St. Vrain, and the
never-built large commercial designs were all significantly different.
Experience with larger-scale breeders, admittedly only two, has not been
encouraging. A person could compare it with the initial experience with
PWRs, first in submarines, then the commercial demonstration at
Shippingsport, all of which worked superbly right from the start and
proved that at least this type of reactor could be operated safely and
efficiently as a commercial venture, and all of which were
relatively-straightforward scaling exercises from one design to the next.
Of course, scalability by itself doesn't make a good reactor design, as
the RBMK demonstrates.
73,
JohnW
John Wilson
Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
When I first got involved in this business, in the mid-70s, there was
some enthusiasm for "nuclear parks", clusters of maybe 10 reactors and a
colocated reprocessing plant to handle their spent fuel. It never
happened, largely because the economic disruptions of the 1970s dropped
the rate of load growth to a level that couldn't justify building more
generation (until just recently, as it has turned out), and because of
Carter's decision to keep the US' hands clean by not reprocessing, to
set an example for the other nuclear nations, most of which showed their
admiration for the US lead by acquiring their own reprocessing
capability, by building their own (Britain, France), working on
developing their own (Germany, Japan) or participating in the British
and French efforts. The closest thing I know of to such a "nuclear park"
is the Fukushima facility in Japan, with 10 units on two adjacent sites.
A big nuclear park like this would be a major electrical problem. Power
transmission systems are easier to design and operate when generation is
more distributed, rather than concentrated at one probably-remote
location, and located close to the major load centers.
I believe it also turns out that by the time you load and decontaminate
a spent-fuel cask at a reactor site and unload it at a reprocessing
site, you've paid for most of the costs of shipping it. The actual
over-the-road (or railroad) haul dosn't add much to the costs, so there
isn't much economic benefit to locating small reprocessing facilities
close to reactors. And after reprocessing, you still have high-level
waste shipments, admittedly a much smaller volume than spent fuel.
73,
JohnW
Paul F. Dietz
> That's a problem?
It's a problem for those advocating breeder reactors.
Paul
Karl Johanson
news:3CF0869D...@pandora.be...
>
> John Wilson wrote:
>
> > Mike Darrett wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > >>current power plants could continue to operate for hundreds of
> > >>years without receiving any more fuel from outside, by consuming
> > >>most of the hazardous material in their current supply of "spent"
> > >>fuel waste.
> > >
> > > They're called "breeder" reactors. The French have them.
> >
> > The French had the world's only commercial-scale breeder reactor, the
> > Superphenix plant at Creys-Malville. I say "had" because the plant has
> > been permanently shut down; see:
> >
> > http://www.francenuc.org/en_sites/rhone_crey_e.htm
>
> There was also the experimental UK one at Dounray (placed at the extreme
> north of Scotland) which is now about to be the world's most expensive
> caustic soda plant ;-)
>
> http://www.ukaea.org.uk/dounreay/decomm.htm
>
> Liquid sodium cooling sounded OK in theory until you tried to run with it
in
> bulk.
The IFR designed seemed to have the sodium issues handled.
> Recycling nuclear waste still leaves you with a stream of pretty horrible
> neutron rich and highly radioactive fission products in the gunge. A few
> sites well controlled, properly supervised and operated is probably better
> than having lots of cowboys recycling it in their garden sheds.
>
> Pity there still isn't a half decent energy efficient process for
rendering
> the byproducts reasonably inert for the geological timescales that are
> needed.
It decays on it's own pretty well. In a one day the specific level of
radioactivity is down 70% or so. In 10 years around 10,000 times (and most
of the highly volatile isotopes are gone). The specific level of
radioactivity of power plant plutonium decreases to around 2% in around 175
years. The Pu 239 shouldn't be much of an issue. The 4,000 or so pounds of
plutonium produced at Oklo barely migrated through the rock it was formed in
(as evidenced by decay products). This in spite of it being unclad,
uncontained, unvitrified and in spite of boiling water flowing over it for
half a million years. The danger isn't zero, but we have far more pressing
energy related health concerns.
Karl Johanson
Richard Henry
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:FLjI8.146241$GG6.12...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> The specific level of
> radioactivity of power plant plutonium decreases to around 2% in around
175
> years.
I have never heard it expressed that way before. Could you show some
calculations or links to more details of the decay process?
Gregg E.
John Wilson wrote:
> and French efforts. The closest thing I know of to such a "nuclear park"
> is the Fukushima facility in Japan, with 10 units on two adjacent sites.
>
> A big nuclear park like this would be a major electrical problem. Power
> transmission systems are easier to design and operate when generation is
> more distributed, rather than concentrated at one probably-remote
> location, and located close to the major load centers.
For Japan it makes sense due to the geographical shape of the country.
Have they ever straightened out their split electrical system with
half the country running on 220V 50Hz and the other half on 110V 60Hz?
That was a legacy of the US and UK sharing the electrification of Japan
after WW2.
Hmmm, maybe that's why the Fukushima plan is split in two parts? ;)
Richard Henry
"Gregg E." <gre...@valint.net> wrote in message
news:3CF1DB2F...@valint.net...
>
> For Japan it makes sense due to the geographical shape of the country.
>
> Have they ever straightened out their split electrical system with
> half the country running on 220V 50Hz and the other half on 110V 60Hz?
> That was a legacy of the US and UK sharing the electrification of Japan
> after WW2.
>
> Hmmm, maybe that's why the Fukushima plan is split in two parts? ;)
>
According to the data at www.panelcomponents.com, Japan is all 110 v, but is
split betwen 50 Hz and 60 Hz.
Martin Brown
Richard Henry wrote:
It is probably true, but remember the stuff as it comes out of a reactor is
very hot!
Someone has put together a nice page of the species you expect in used fuel
rods:
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/dees/ees/lithosphere/lab11/table_4.html
Assume most of the specific radioactivity is contained in short lived species
like Sr90 and Cs137 with ~30y half life. This means it should decay down to
1/64th original activity in around 6x30 years.
It sounds a tadge optimistic about ignoring other contributions to me, but it
is in about the right ball park. 2% activity of a hot used fuel rod is still
not something you want to go and stand near.
That said there are plenty of delightful ponds of transuranic and fission
product radioactive gunk at Savannah river and Hanford that boil under their
own influence and contain heaven only knows what.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Daniel B. Wheeler
far away. Venting at these "storage" facilities happens on a regular
basis, and the winds may carry them far away toward the mid-west, or
back toward the coast. Also, some of the containment facilities are
known to leak, and while still considered minor, the Columbia River is
well within range of the spreading contaminated water plume. Some
critics would say the amount is minor. But considering that plutonium
is deadly at tiny concentrations, it there a "safe" amount or
exposure?
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Richard Henry
>
>
> Richard Henry wrote:
>
> > "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:FLjI8.146241$GG6.12...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > > The specific level of
> > > radioactivity of power plant plutonium decreases to around 2% in
around
> > 175
> > > years.
> >
> > I have never heard it expressed that way before. Could you show some
> > calculations or links to more details of the decay process?
>
> It is probably true, but remember the stuff as it comes out of a reactor
is
> very hot!
>
> Someone has put together a nice page of the species you expect in used
fuel
> rods:
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/dees/ees/lithosphere/lab11/table_4.html
>
> Assume most of the specific radioactivity is contained in short lived
species
> like Sr90 and Cs137 with ~30y half life. This means it should decay down
to
> 1/64th original activity in around 6x30 years.
Why would you assume that? The page cited lists no proportions.
Is there a good engineering number for the production of the long-lived
isotopes for a given amount of typical enriched-uranium reactor fuel?
Jeffrey Siegal
> Also, some of the containment facilities are
> known to leak, and while still considered minor, the Columbia River is
> well within range of the spreading contaminated water plume. Some
> critics would say the amount is minor. But considering that plutonium
> is deadly at tiny concentrations, it there a "safe" amount or
> exposure?
While Plutonium is indeed toxic, the degree of toxicity has been
*greatly* exagerated in popular culture. See, for example,
http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm
Graham Cowan
All available evidence suggests there is
(http://cnts.wpi.edu/rsh/Data_Docs/index.html).
Specifically, experience with radium-226,
cf. http://augustachronicle.com/stories/030201/met_124-1020.shtml,
is a good guide to what to expect of plutonium,
for they are identically bone-seeking alpha-emitters
(although 226-Ra has a much greater bioavailability,
being a calcium homologue).
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
nuclear drive for personal vehicles
Gregory L. Hansen
Daniel B. Wheeler <dwhe...@ipns.com> wrote:
>While I can't speak for the Savannah River site, Hanford is not _that_
>far away. Venting at these "storage" facilities happens on a regular
>basis, and the winds may carry them far away toward the mid-west, or
>back toward the coast. Also, some of the containment facilities are
>known to leak, and while still considered minor, the Columbia River is
>well within range of the spreading contaminated water plume. Some
>critics would say the amount is minor. But considering that plutonium
>is deadly at tiny concentrations, it there a "safe" amount or
>exposure?
For starters, if the increased dose is less than typical variations of
background rates, I'm sure we can call it safe, even if some people will
yell as loudly as they can that no amount, however tiny, can ever be
called safe.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
daestrom
Another note about 'parks'. You're right in pointing out the transmission
problems. When looking at potential siting, I know of two companies that
considered transmission system upgrades to be 'prohibitive' in co-locating
with one of their existing units.
daestrom
Ian St. John
>
>
> Richard Henry wrote:
>
> > "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> > news:FLjI8.146241$GG6.12...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> > > The specific level of
> > > radioactivity of power plant plutonium decreases to around 2% in
around
> > 175
> > > years.
> >
> > I have never heard it expressed that way before. Could you show some
> > calculations or links to more details of the decay process?
>
> It is probably true, but remember the stuff as it comes out of a reactor
is
> very hot!
>
> Someone has put together a nice page of the species you expect in used
fuel
> rods:
> http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/dees/ees/lithosphere/lab11/table_4.html
>
> Assume most of the specific radioactivity is contained in short lived
species
> like Sr90 and Cs137 with ~30y half life. This means it should decay down
to
> 1/64th original activity in around 6x30 years.
Incorrect as fuel rods are not cesium or strontium, but a mix of both highly
radioactive but short-lived transuranics and long lived but low decay rate
ekements.
>
> It sounds a tadge optimistic about ignoring other contributions to me, but
it
> is in about the right ball park. 2% activity of a hot used fuel rod is
still
> not something you want to go and stand near.
I'm not sure of the relevance of specifying fuel rod activity only in terms
of plutonium either. What isotope? There are 16, each with different decay
rates.
>
> That said there are plenty of delightful ponds of transuranic and fission
> product radioactive gunk at Savannah river and Hanford that boil under
their
> own influence and contain heaven only knows what.
I think you are distorting things a bit. The *longest living* of the highly
radioactive transuranics is cesium, but the intense radiation is due mostly
to the *shortest living* isotopes. These decay fast!
From http://www.nucleartourist.com/systems/spfuel1.htm
"In many countries, the fuel assemblies, after being in the reactor for 3 to
6 years, are stored underwater for 10 to 20 years"
"The decay heat rate produced by fuel assemblies removed from a reactor
initially decreases by a factor of one-half every twelve days, then by a
factor a one-half every year."
"After 10 or more years, the radiation and decay heat levels are low enough
that the fuel assemblies may be stored in large casks which can be cooled by
air passing on the outside."
I haven't found anything about them being stored in ponds or rivers, boiling
or otherwise.
Karl Johanson
news:ewkI8.75798$Q93.4...@news1.west.cox.net...
While it's common for people to say that it takes 24,110 years for plutonium
to lose half of it's level of radioactivity, this doesn't account for fact
that most of the specific level of radiation from reactor grade plutonium is
from other isotopes other than Pu 239. The shorter lived plutonium isotopes
account for much of the biological danger of plutonium.
(some rounding used)
Spent fuel for typical light water reactors tends to have a plutonium
isotope distribution of approximately:
Pu 238 2%
Pu 239 61%
Pu 240 24%
Pu 241 10%
Pu 242 3%
In terms of percentage of the specific level of radiation from the reactor
plutonium we have approximately:
Half life
Pu 238 3.191% 87.7 years
Pu 239 .354% 24,110 years
Pu 240 .509% 6,564 years
Pu 241 95.9% 14.35 years
Pu 242 .0011% 379,00 years
In 175 years (two half lives of Pu 238) the Pu 238, for example, will have
decayed to 25% of what it was, etc.
Pu 238 .8%
Pu 239 .35%
Pu 240 .5%
Pu 241 .023%
Pu 242 .0011%
Total Approx 1.9% (of the specific level of radioactivity of the
plutonium right out of the reactor)
To put it another way, the specific level of radiation from light water
reactor grade plutonium declines by more than 98% in less than 180 years.
Karl Johanson
Timothy Miller
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
To put it yet another way, the once through fuel cycle will in the
long run create Pu 239 mines.
Daniel B. Wheeler
[snip]
> For starters, if the increased dose is less than typical variations of
> background rates, I'm sure we can call it safe, even if some people will
> yell as loudly as they can that no amount, however tiny, can ever be
> called safe.
common as a by-product of recent volcanic activity in the Cascades
Mountains. Remember Mt. St. Helens in 1980?
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Martin Brown
Karl Johanson wrote:
Quietly ignoring the new composition of the bar after the Pu241 has decayed to
Am241 (half life 432y). I reckon after 180 years there will be ~7% Am241 present
as the next shortest lived isotope.
That alone accounts for about 2% of the original specific radioactivity of the
original bar.
Getting down to 2% as measured on an undisturbed sample is more like 600 years
away.
> To put it another way, the specific level of radiation from light water
> reactor grade plutonium declines by more than 98% in less than 180 years.
Only if you ignore the contributions from non plutonium decay products.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Gregory L. Hansen
There are some areas with very high background rates, areas that would be
marked with magenta propellors if they'd been man-made, but I wasn't
including them because those are not typical.
You get a radiation dose anywhere you are from background levels, which
can vary. You get an increased dose whenever you go into a stone
building, take a trip on an airplane, eat a banana, and so on, not to
mention medical uses of radiation. You get a cancer risk from new car
smell, from cigarette smoke (even second-hand), from grilled meats, and
other sources that are usually considered safe.
If you really want to minimize your radiation dose you'd be living in a
grass hut by the ocean.
Michael Moroney
What about a reactor design where in the center there are "new" fuel rods
surrounded by a ring of "spent" fuel rods (perhaps surrounded by another
outer ring of older fuel rods)? The central core would be able to
maintain the reaction and would supply an excess of thermal neutrons that
would irradiate the "spent" fuel rods, inducing fission and using up more
of the uranium within them. By producing more energy per fuel rod there
is less nuclear waste per unit energy. The "spent" fuel rods may have a
buildup of neutron poisons so they cannot maintain fission but that is
not important as the inner core supplies a flux of neutrons that "burns up"
the fuel in these "spent" fuel rods. At refueling time, the outer rods
are removed, the inner rods moved to the outer layer and fresh fuel is
loaded in the center portion of the reactor. Maybe there could be 3 layers
or more.
-Mike
Ian Gay
http://www.cns-snc.ca/events/CNS98/Abstracts/Log93/log93Abstract.pdf
*** To reply by e-mail, make double u single in address ***
daestrom
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:Gwvu7E...@world.std.com...
Not really a dumb question, but 'been there, done that'. In the US at
least, BWR reactors typically replace only one-third of the fuel each
refueling. The oldest (three fuel cycles old) is removed, that which has
been in the reactor two fuel cycles is shuffled around with the fuel that
has only been in one cycle, and new, never used fuel is added.
Baring any defects, each bundle is run for three fuel cycles. It used to be
somewhat straight forward, take out the outer ring, move the middle ring to
outer, move the inner ring to middle, and put new fuel in central area.
With advent of enrichment zoning, axial profile controls, burnable poisons
and more... now it takes a computer program from one of the big fuel
vendors to come up with the shuffling scheme each outage.
Some plants have variations, I've heard of four-cycle management, but it
doesn't seem to be as common as three-cycle. Since the fuel is expensive,
you can bet the owners try to 'squeeze' all they can out of them. But at
some point, the last little bit of potential energy is offset by the extra
plant limitations that using highly-exposed fuel bring.
daestrom
Dewey & Lucy Thompson
> least, BWR reactors typically replace only one-third of the fuel each
> refueling. The oldest (three fuel cycles old) is removed, that which has
> been in the reactor two fuel cycles is shuffled around with the fuel that
> has only been in one cycle, and new, never used fuel is added.
>
> Baring any defects, each bundle is run for three fuel cycles. It used to
be
> somewhat straight forward, take out the outer ring, move the middle ring
to
> outer, move the inner ring to middle, and put new fuel in central area.
> With advent of enrichment zoning, axial profile controls, burnable poisons
> and more... now it takes a computer program from one of the big fuel
> vendors to come up with the shuffling scheme each outage.
>
> Some plants have variations, I've heard of four-cycle management, but it
> doesn't seem to be as common as three-cycle. Since the fuel is expensive,
> you can bet the owners try to 'squeeze' all they can out of them. But at
> some point, the last little bit of potential energy is offset by the extra
> plant limitations that using highly-exposed fuel bring.
>
> daestrom
Actually, there have been five cycle bundles. They are like sticking a
corkscrew into the vessel.
dewey
Gregory L. Hansen
I'd have thought they'd take old fuel from the middle, install new fuel at
the edge, and shuffle everything else inside. That way the old fuel gets
burned more completely in the higher flux at the center, and the new fuel
gets a slower start since it's pretty heavily enriched to last longer
between refuelings. Some fuel elements are actually built with burnable
poisons to deliberately slow the reactivity at the start of the cycle.
As for why it's not done for disposal, you still have a lot of 238U left
at the end of a cycle, and as long as you have 238U, neutrons will be
cranking out more radioactive waste.
Dez Akin
> On Sat, 25 May 2002 15:54:17 GMT, "Tim Perdue" <t...@gotocity.com>
> wrote:
>
> >X-No-archive: yes
> >"Jim Blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
> >news:acjt7n$c7h$1...@news.doit.wisc.edu...
> >
> >I am not even remotely a nuclear expert, just a bystander who supports
> >nuclear power strongly.
> >
> Maybe not, from http://www.anl.gov/OPA/frontiers/d1ee4.html:
>
> A nuclear fuel cycle based on Argonne's pyroprocessing technology
> offers substantial improvements in waste management, proliferation
> resistance and economic potential compared to conventional processing
> technologies used overseas.
>
> Fuel recycling: The key step is "electrorefining," which removes
> uranium, plutonium and the other actinides (highly radioactive
> elements with long half-lives) from the spent fuel, while keeping them
> mixed together so the plutonium cannot be used directly in weapons.
> Spent fuel from reactors that use metallic uranium fuel can go
> straight to the electrorefiner. Spent fuel from commercial reactors,
> which consists of uranium oxide, would first undergo an "oxide
> reduction" step to convert it to metallic form. Next, the uranium and
> other actinides are sent to the cathode processor to remove residual
> salts and cadmium from electrorefining. The actinides are cast into
> fresh fuel, while the salts and cadmium are recycled back into the
> electrorefiner.
>
>
> Nuclear waste: The waste consists of two forms. The stainless steel
> cladding that encased the spent fuel is combined with noble metal
> fission products in a metallic waste form. Salts and other fission
> products are combined with zeolites and converted into a ceramic
> waste. Both metal and ceramic waste forms are highly radioactive when
> they are created, but in less than 400 years, their radioactivity
> decays so they are less toxic than the natural ore the original fuel
> came from.
>
> Also try searching on IFR (integrated fast reactor). This is a program
> killed by Clinton in 94. The proposed reactors were to do all
> processing on-site, with no actinides ever leaving the plant. You will
> get a lot of hits on activist sites, since they hate any technology
> that might reduce waste production because they hope to shut down
> nuclear energy via the waste issue.
>
Or you could just use molten salt reactors and do all the
electrorefining and pyroprocessing online, save on the costs of fuel
fabrication, get better neutron economy, etc...
Steve Harris
>> A nuclear fuel cycle based on Argonne's pyroprocessing technology
>> offers substantial improvements in waste management, proliferation
>> resistance and economic potential compared to conventional processing
>> technologies used overseas.
>>
>> Fuel recycling: The key step is "electrorefining," which removes
>> uranium, plutonium and the other actinides (highly radioactive
>> elements with long half-lives) from the spent fuel, while keeping them
>> mixed together so the plutonium cannot be used directly in weapons.
Plutonium from spent fuel rods can't be used in weapons-- that's a great
urban myth, one which somebody milking DOE seems happy to perpetuate. By
the time a rod has burned out in a reactor it has way too much Pu-240 in it
to be usable in a bomb. It's been "denatured" just like alcohol, and a lot
less reversibly (if you could separate Pu-239 from 240, you more easily can
do U-235 from 238). If you want to make bombs, you must therefore
deliberately remove fuel rods early, in order to get a bomb grade Pu239/240
ratio.
All you need for a nuclear security program is somebody making sure that all
fuel rods stay in the reactor until fully done. Since reactor rods can't be
clandestinely removed from working reactors (the anti-theft system is the
best in the universe), security issues involve merely making sure rogue
governments don't have reactors, and other governments agree to having
enough accountants on hand to watch over fuel rod schedules. Recommending we
pay Price-Waterhouse-Cooper a few bucks more is not a very sexy anti weapons
diversion program, but there it is.
SBH
--
I welcome email from any being clever enough to fix my address. It's open
book. A prize to the first spambot that passes my Turing test.
Dirk Bruere
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:ad8qjv$omp$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
> Dez Akin wrote in message ...
> >> A nuclear fuel cycle based on Argonne's pyroprocessing technology
> >> offers substantial improvements in waste management, proliferation
> >> resistance and economic potential compared to conventional processing
> >> technologies used overseas.
> >>
> >> Fuel recycling: The key step is "electrorefining," which removes
> >> uranium, plutonium and the other actinides (highly radioactive
> >> elements with long half-lives) from the spent fuel, while keeping them
> >> mixed together so the plutonium cannot be used directly in weapons.
>
>
>
> Plutonium from spent fuel rods can't be used in weapons-- that's a great
> urban myth, one which somebody milking DOE seems happy to perpetuate. By
> the time a rod has burned out in a reactor it has way too much Pu-240 in
it
> to be usable in a bomb. It's been "denatured" just like alcohol, and a lot
> less reversibly (if you could separate Pu-239 from 240, you more easily
can
> do U-235 from 238). If you want to make bombs, you must therefore
> deliberately remove fuel rods early, in order to get a bomb grade
Pu239/240
> ratio.
http://www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm
Dirk
Paul F. Dietz
> Plutonium from spent fuel rods can't be used in weapons-- that's a great
> urban myth, one which somebody milking DOE seems happy to perpetuate. By
> the time a rod has burned out in a reactor it has way too much Pu-240 in it
> to be usable in a bomb.
No, *that* is a myth. The higher isotopes still chain react
with a critical mass only slightly larger than Pu239. They
produce a higher neutron background, but even a fizzle would
produce a yield of ~ 1 kiloton. If DT boosting is used,
even a fizzle will reach the boosting threshold, guaranteeing
a large yield.
Paul
Gregory L. Hansen
>news:ad8qjv$omp$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>all
>> fuel rods stay in the reactor until fully done. Since reactor rods can't
>be
>> clandestinely removed from working reactors (the anti-theft system is the
>> best in the universe), security issues involve merely making sure rogue
>> governments don't have reactors, and other governments agree to having
>> enough accountants on hand to watch over fuel rod schedules. Recommending
>we
>> pay Price-Waterhouse-Cooper a few bucks more is not a very sexy anti
>weapons
>> diversion program, but there it is.
>
>here, claiming that nuclear waste itself can be turned into a fission bomb,
>although it is difficult since it requires implosion of a lot more material
>than a regular high-quality fission bomb.
If nuclear waste could be turned into a fission bomb, then there's a whole
lot of unburned fuel left over! Nuclear fuel in commercial plants starts
out barely enriched, and never becomes more "bomb grade" throughout the
cycle. The good stuff is too diluted by 238U and O, and more things come
along throughout the cycle including neutron poisons.
Steve Harris
>http://www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm
Okay, it appears there is some argument on this point. The US says it
actually tested a bomb in the 1960's made from reactor grade plutonium
(which would have been more than 19% Pu-240, according to current use of the
term.) The plutonium came from a UK power reactor. The US won't say what
the yield was, or what the actual Pu-240 % was.
Mark Thorson
> No, *that* is a myth. The higher isotopes still chain react
> with a critical mass only slightly larger than Pu239. They
> produce a higher neutron background, but even a fizzle would
> produce a yield of ~ 1 kiloton. If DT boosting is used,
> even a fizzle will reach the boosting threshold, guaranteeing
> a large yield.
I believe the Ivy Mike shot used deuterium alone.
That would be much easier to make and handle
than anything that uses tritium, as long as we're
talking about a project for the do-it-yourselfer.
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/html/107-110.html
Paul F. Dietz
> Nuclear fuel in commercial plants starts
> out barely enriched, and never becomes more "bomb grade" throughout the
> cycle.
It starts out without plutonium, and ends up with considerable
plutonium, which can be separated from the other elements by
chemical means.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> I believe the Ivy Mike shot used deuterium alone.
> That would be much easier to make and handle
> than anything that uses tritium, as long as we're
> talking about a project for the do-it-yourselfer.
It used deuterium in the secondary. *Boosting* of US
fission weapons (and primaries of thermonuclear weapons)
involves tritium -- you can bet they'd have avoided
tritium if it were practical, since 5% of the stuff
decays every year.
Paul
Jeffrey Siegal
> It starts out without plutonium, and ends up with considerable
> plutonium, which can be separated from the other elements by
> chemical means.
Even when separated, it still isn't bomb grade due to isotopic
poisoning. Theoretically it can be made into a bomb, but doing so is
much harder than using plutonium created for that purpose.
Paul F. Dietz
> Even when separated, it still isn't bomb grade due to isotopic
> poisoning. Theoretically it can be made into a bomb, but doing so is
> much harder than using plutonium created for that purpose.
It's not really that much harder. After all, a device that
still produces at least 1 kT of yield is by any reasonable definition
still a bomb (and if you have tritium, at least tens of kT.)
US 'weapons grade' plutonium, btw, has an isotopic composition
determined by the economics of the production reactors, not by
limits on the higher isotopes imposed by bomb design. The material
has a much higher concentration of higher Pu isotopes that the
'super-weapons grade' material produced in WW2.
Paul
Jeffrey Siegal
> Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
>
> > Even when separated, it still isn't bomb grade due to isotopic
> > poisoning. Theoretically it can be made into a bomb, but doing so is
> > much harder than using plutonium created for that purpose.
>
> It's not really that much harder.
A question of opinion (and, often, agenda). I'd say a bomb that
requires several times more Plutonium and emits a lot more radiation is
a lot harder to build, store and deploy. Again, certainly not
impossible, but harder. And this ignores design factors that may make a
larger bomb harder simply because it is larger. (Implosion bombs are
not so easy to build to begin with.) *And* it ignores the practical
problems of separating Plutonium from the spent fuel in the first place.
> US 'weapons grade' plutonium, btw, has an isotopic composition
> determined by the economics of the production reactors, not by
> limits on the higher isotopes imposed by bomb design. The material
> has a much higher concentration of higher Pu isotopes that the
> 'super-weapons grade' material produced in WW2.
But still much less than power reactor plutonium, thus reactor plutonium
is not "bomb grade", which is what the original poster said.
It was really quite remarkable that we were able to build an imposion
bomb during WWII, but we did. Nevertheless, I'm not particularly
concerned about a terrorist or even a rogue state replicating the
Manhattan project. The most likely the sources of terrorist bomb, by
far:
1. Stolen/sold/lost bomb from an existing arsenal.
2. Stolen/sold/lost HEU from an existing arsenal.
3. Enrichment of stolen/sold/lost/redirected LEU.
Reactor Plutonium is so far down on the list isn't worth worrying about.
Paul F. Dietz
> A question of opinion (and, often, agenda).
Well, no, it's a question of facts.
> I'd say a bomb that requires several times more Plutonium and
> emits a lot more radiation is a lot harder to build, store and deploy.
Indeed it would. That doesn't really describe bombs made
from reactor grade Pu, though. The bare sphere critical mass
for r-PU is about 30% larger than for w-Pu. Pu-240 and Pu-241
have only weak gamma emission. Their neutron emission is
considerably higher, but not terribly dangerously so.
Am-241 from Pu-241 decay does produce more gammas, so the
material would have to be repurified after a point to remove
the accumulated americium.
The biggest hassle with r-Pu (aside from the need to accept
or get around predetonation) is the higher heat output -- but
that's not a show-stopper.
> > limits on the higher isotopes imposed by bomb design. The material
> > has a much higher concentration of higher Pu isotopes that the
> > 'super-weapons grade' material produced in WW2.
>
> But still much less than power reactor plutonium, thus reactor plutonium
> is not "bomb grade", which is what the original poster said.
Weapons grade has a factor of 3 or so less Pu-240 than reactor
grade Pu. Is that 'much' less?
I repeat: not being bomb grade doesn't mean you can't make a bomb
out of it. If one is willing to settle for lower yields, it doesn't
increase the difficulty very much at all.
Paul
John Wilson
Martin Brown wrote:
...
> That said there are plenty of delightful ponds of transuranic and fission
> product radioactive gunk at Savannah river and Hanford that boil under their
> own influence and contain heaven only knows what.
>
> Regards,
> Martin Brown
>
>
Another anti-nuclear lie. There are no ponds at either site that boil by
decay heat; in fact, there are no ponds that contain significant
radioactivity. All this material is stored in closed tanks and is
carefully monitored. Yes, some tanks at Hanford have leaked, though not
enough to cause any human health problems.
There is one pond at a site in Russia where dissolver liquor (the
untreated waste stream from reprocessing) was dumped for years. It's a
major cleanup problem, and is so radioacive that a person standing at
its edge gets a dangerous radiation dose in minutes. There is nothing
comparable anywhere else in the world.
People who think socialism results in a better environment live in a
dream world.
73,
JohnW
Dez Akin
> Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
>
> > Even when separated, it still isn't bomb grade due to isotopic
> > poisoning. Theoretically it can be made into a bomb, but doing so is
> > much harder than using plutonium created for that purpose.
>
> It's not really that much harder. After all, a device that
> still produces at least 1 kT of yield is by any reasonable definition
> still a bomb (and if you have tritium, at least tens of kT.)
You have to do implosion right? And the instabilities of doing
inertial confinement of tritium with a fission trigger are pretty
extreme, yah?
So now what? If your terrorist organization can build the implosion
device that remains stable long enough in inertial confinement to fuse
tritium, They're essentially building a primer for the teller-ulam
configuration.
Then reactor grade Pu tends to be rather much hotter than weapons
grade. Quite a bit harder to machine I imagine.
It doesn't sound like an easy task.
Mark Thorson
At 10.4 megatons, the Ivy Mike shot demonstrated that
a deuterium-only device could get a yield in the range
of a very large nuclear weapon. I suspect the use of
tritium in deployed nuclear weapons is simply to reduce
the size and weight. I haven't found the data anywhere,
but I seem to recall they used a couple of tons of liquid
deuterium in the Ivy Mike shot. That would be impractical
for a missile warhead and quite large for an airborne bomb,
but very feasible for the back of a rented Ryder truck.
Paul F. Dietz
> You have to do implosion right? And the instabilities of doing
> inertial confinement of tritium with a fission trigger are pretty
> extreme, yah?
No -- this DT gas in a capsule inside the plutonium core.
It is compressed along with the the plutonium, and additionally
by 'ionization compression' when the core begins to react.
It doesn't have to be supercompressed as in ICF targets
or Teller-Ulam configuration secondaries.
Paul
Paul F. Dietz
> At 10.4 megatons, the Ivy Mike shot demonstrated that
> a deuterium-only device could get a yield in the range
> of a very large nuclear weapon. I suspect the use of
> tritium in deployed nuclear weapons is simply to reduce
> the size and weight.
The deuterium in Ivy Mike and the tritium in most US
nuclear warheads serve very different purposes.
In Ivy Mike, the deuterium is in a secondary assembly
that is compressed/ignited after the explosion of
the primary is over and done with. This secondary
contained no tritium; adding tritium there would have
been very expensive and would have served no useful
purpose -- the very high compression enabled the secondary
to reach a temperature at which DD fusion is feasible.
Tritium is used in boosted fission weaposn and the
primaries of thermonuclear weapons (including the primary
of Ivy Mike!). It is contained in the core, and reacts
as part of the explosion of the fission weapon/primary.
Its purpose is twofold: to increase the yield, and to
render the device immune to loss of yield from predetonation.
Paul
Timothy Miller
wrote:
>Jeffrey Siegal wrote:
>
>> A question of opinion (and, often, agenda).
>
>Well, no, it's a question of facts.
>
One fact is that the undesirable isotopes have high spontaneous
neutron emission rates. A bomb made with such material is likely to
undergo a chain reaction before a super-critical mass can be
assembled. The resultant heat could prevent further compression.
Paul F. Dietz
> >Well, no, it's a question of facts.
> One fact is that the undesirable isotopes have high spontaneous
> neutron emission rates. A bomb made with such material is likely to
> undergo a chain reaction before a super-critical mass can be
> assembled. The resultant heat could prevent further compression.
No, it's not going to undergo a chain reaction before supercriticality
is assembled. That's not possible -- before that point no
exponentially growing chain reaction is possible. It is more likely
to chain react when the degree of supercriticality is modest,
resulting in a lower yield.
But: (1) even that reduced yield is still roughly a kiloton,
(2) there's a good chance it won't predetonate, giving no yield
penalty, and (3) boosting can be used to achieve high yield even
if premature initiation of the chain reaction occurs.
Carson Mark 1993:
"The difficulties of developing an effective design of the
most straightforward type are not appreciably greater with
reactor-grade plutonium than those that have to be met for
the use of weapons-grade plutonium."
CISAC(3) 1994:
"In short, it would be quite possible for a potential
proliferator to make a nuclear explosive from reactor-grade
plutonium using a simple design that would be assured of
having a yield in the range of one to a few kilotons, and
more using an advanced design. Theft of separated plutonium
whether weapons-grade or reactor-grade, would pose a grave
security risk."
American Nuclear Society Special Panel Report(4) 1995:
"We are aware that a number of well-qualified scientists in
countries that have not developed nuclear weapons question
the weapons-usability of reactor-grade plutonium. While
recognizing that explosives have been produced from this
material, many believe that this is a feat that can be
accomplished only by an advanced nuclear- weapon state such
as the United States. This is not the case. Any nation or
group capable of making a nuclear explosive from weapons-
grade plutonium must be considered capable of making one
from reactor- grade plutonium."
http://www.fas.org/rlg/980826-pu.htm
Paul
Steven Sharp
> One fact is that the undesirable isotopes have high spontaneous
> neutron emission rates. A bomb made with such material is likely to
> undergo a chain reaction before a super-critical mass can be
> assembled. The resultant heat could prevent further compression.
Implosion is fast enough to get significant further compression
before fission energy builds up enough to stop it. The result is
lower, but still considerable yield. From Carey Sublette's
NWFAQ, section 4.1.5.3, on predetonation:
"If a neutron is present at the beginning of insertion, we see
that the disassembly condition occurs at t = 1.25x10^-6 sec.
At this point 52 multiplication intervals have elapsed, and the
effective value of alpha is 8.6x10^7/sec. The corresponding
yield is about 0.5 kt.
The parameters above approximately describe the Fat Man
bomb. This shows that even in the worst case, neutrons being
present at the moment of criticality, quite a substantial yield
would have been created."
There is no substitute in physics for actually doing the math.
He also discusses the use of reactor grade plutonium, including
a US test of such a device.
--
Steven Sharp
sh...@cadence.com
Dirk Bruere
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net> wrote in message
news:3CF9277B...@dls.net...
> Timothy Miller wrote:
>
> > >Well, no, it's a question of facts.
>
> > One fact is that the undesirable isotopes have high spontaneous
> > neutron emission rates. A bomb made with such material is likely to
> > undergo a chain reaction before a super-critical mass can be
> > assembled. The resultant heat could prevent further compression.
>
> No, it's not going to undergo a chain reaction before supercriticality
> is assembled. That's not possible -- before that point no
> exponentially growing chain reaction is possible. It is more likely
> to chain react when the degree of supercriticality is modest,
> resulting in a lower yield.
>
> But: (1) even that reduced yield is still roughly a kiloton,
> (2) there's a good chance it won't predetonate, giving no yield
> penalty, and (3) boosting can be used to achieve high yield even
> if premature initiation of the chain reaction occurs.
In fact, it might make a terrorist bomb easier, since no neutron generator
would be required.
Just the pit and explosive lenses.
Dirk
Michael Moroney
>No, *that* is a myth. The higher isotopes still chain react
>with a critical mass only slightly larger than Pu239. They
>produce a higher neutron background, but even a fizzle would
>produce a yield of ~ 1 kiloton. If DT boosting is used,
>even a fizzle will reach the boosting threshold, guaranteeing
>a large yield.
Out of curiosity, which pure or nearly pure isotopes can be used as fuel
for a fission bomb, in addition to U-235 and Pu-239? I've heard (in
this group?) that they made a U-233 bomb once to prove they could, and
to show thorium breeding isn't safe from the potential of making bombs.
I guess for an isotope to qualify it must not only be able to maintain a
chain reaction but must have a half-life long enough such that it isn't
too hot (either thermally or nuclearly) to work with.
-Mike
Paul F. Dietz
> Out of curiosity, which pure or nearly pure isotopes can be used as fuel
> for a fission bomb, in addition to U-235 and Pu-239? I've heard (in
> this group?) that they made a U-233 bomb once to prove they could, and
> to show thorium breeding isn't safe from the potential of making bombs.
> I guess for an isotope to qualify it must not only be able to maintain a
> chain reaction but must have a half-life long enough such that it isn't
> too hot (either thermally or nuclearly) to work with.
Most isotopes of plutonium and higher, except for those with
short halflives. Spontaneous fission becomes increasingly
problematic, though.
There's not much reason to use anything beyond plutonium.
Paul
Michael Moroney
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, which pure or nearly pure isotopes can be used as fuel
>> for a fission bomb, in addition to U-235 and Pu-239?
>Most isotopes of plutonium and higher, except for those with
>short halflives. Spontaneous fission becomes increasingly
>problematic, though.
Thanks.
>There's not much reason to use anything beyond plutonium.
Actually I was wondering how they came up with "low yield" small devices
such as rumored howizer-fired nuclear weapons. My guess was that there
was some exotic isotope that had such a small critical mass that a small
amount was all that was needed for a fission device.
-Mike
Paul F. Dietz
> Actually I was wondering how they came up with "low yield" small devices
> such as rumored howizer-fired nuclear weapons. My guess was that there
> was some exotic isotope that had such a small critical mass that a small
> amount was all that was needed for a fission device.
More likely, just a very inefficient device based on plutonium,
perhaps exploiting that metal's alpha-delta phase transition.
Paul
Paul Studier
6.0 Nuclear Materials at
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/nukeweap/Nfaq0.html
Probably more than you ever wanted to know, hope this helps.
"Michael Moroney" <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote in message
news:Gx33z...@world.std.com...
> Out of curiosity, which pure or nearly pure isotopes can be used as fuel
> for a fission bomb, in addition to U-235 and Pu-239? I've heard (in
> this group?) that they made a U-233 bomb once to prove they could, and
> to show thorium breeding isn't safe from the potential of making bombs.
> I guess for an isotope to qualify it must not only be able to maintain a
> chain reaction but must have a half-life long enough such that it isn't
> too hot (either thermally or nuclearly) to work with.
>
> -Mike
>
--
Paul Studier <Stu...@pleasenospamtoPaulStudier.com>
When you work, you create.
When you win, you just take from the loser.
For an explanation, see http://paulstudier.com/win
Dale A Trynor
Not sure if its a good idea to be suggesting ideas but I am also curious if
this had been used.
I have had an idea that a smaller atomic weapon could be made by assembling the
atomic material into its critical mass while stabilizing it with a neutron
absorber .Then rather than imploding the mass, instead use the explosives
charge to displace gadolinium plates, exposing the core. Obviously sense
everything is already close together without the need for a big space inside,
it dose allow for a smaller design.
As far as I know a stable naturally occurring gadolinium isotope, is the
greatest neutron absorber.
Don't forget that this neutron cross section is of significant importance to
deterring the potential size of a critical mass. Assuming one had a fissionable
material with boron's and or gadoliniums cross section it would have made
possible some rather fantastically small atomic bombs.
I could have sworn I saw a listing showing some mercury isotope that was both
fissionable and with a high cross section, but could never find it again, so I
must have seen something else and confused it. Would have been interesting if
the red mercury scam were to have had some measure of truth.
I need help figuring out if this theory for the expansion of space by gravity,
is it wrong, where?
http://www.9cy.com/members2/dalet/
www.alternatescience.com
Paul F. Dietz
> I have had an idea that a smaller atomic weapon could be made by assembling the
> atomic material into its critical mass while stabilizing it with a neutron
> absorber .Then rather than imploding the mass, instead use the explosives
> charge to displace gadolinium plates, exposing the core. Obviously sense
> everything is already close together without the need for a big space inside,
> it dose allow for a smaller design.
>
> As far as I know a stable naturally occurring gadolinium isotope, is the
> greatest neutron absorber.
Gadolinium is a great absorber of *thermal* neutrons.
Neutrons in a bomb are *fast* neutrons.
Paul
daestrom
> >least, BWR reactors typically replace only one-third of the fuel each
> >refueling. The oldest (three fuel cycles old) is removed, that which has
> >been in the reactor two fuel cycles is shuffled around with the fuel that
> >has only been in one cycle, and new, never used fuel is added.
> >
> >Baring any defects, each bundle is run for three fuel cycles. It used to
be
> >somewhat straight forward, take out the outer ring, move the middle ring
to
> >outer, move the inner ring to middle, and put new fuel in central area.
> >With advent of enrichment zoning, axial profile controls, burnable
poisons
> >and more... now it takes a computer program from one of the big fuel
> >vendors to come up with the shuffling scheme each outage.
> >
> >Some plants have variations, I've heard of four-cycle management, but it
> >doesn't seem to be as common as three-cycle. Since the fuel is
expensive,
> >you can bet the owners try to 'squeeze' all they can out of them. But at
> >some point, the last little bit of potential energy is offset by the
extra
> >plant limitations that using highly-exposed fuel bring.
>
> I'd have thought they'd take old fuel from the middle, install new fuel at
> the edge, and shuffle everything else inside. That way the old fuel gets
> burned more completely in the higher flux at the center, and the new fuel
> gets a slower start since it's pretty heavily enriched to last longer
> between refuelings.
Actually, in BWR's I've seen both fuel management techniques. "Inside-out'
putting new fuel in the center and working it outword, and 'outside-in'
where new fuel is put in the outer ring and moved inward. Usually
'inside-out' is used because the older fuel is more limiting as far as
allowable power levels (thinks like AveragePlanarHeatGenerationLimit are
exposure dependent). So run them at high power levels early in life, and
move them outward.
But both of these management techniques are old-fashioned' New fuels with
finer zoning of enrichments and burnable poisons, combined with more
powerful computer models and the hardware to run them have allowed for very
detailed management. These days, it is pretty hard to see any 'pattern' to
the placement of each cycle's fuel.
> Some fuel elements are actually built with burnable
> poisons to deliberately slow the reactivity at the start of the cycle.
Yes, in newer fuel designs, as I mentioned in my first reply.
daestrom
Max Keon
This is all very alarming Paul. The services of someone with first
hand knowledge of only the basics of such bomb making skills could
then be enlisted by a terrorist organization. Small bombs
(necessarily untested) could be taken to **many** parts of the world
to be detonated in unison, in a September Eleven type operation.
Immediate retaliation is impossible because the source can't be
identified. And "suspicious" countries can't be targeted without
some sort of evidence of involvement. There is no defense against
this idiocy. A cornered suicide bomber isn't really in a corner
either. Shoot first and ask question after, are the only rules for
this game if such an attack is envisaged. So throw away that
luminous watch.
Not intending to change the subject at all; The terrorist threat
is not going to go away while the world's unsustainable population
causes conflict over dwindling resources and land space. Life is
going to become increasingly difficult while nature's only remaining
overpopulation cure unfolds. A natural balance will be restored,
but it will never again be what it was. And this is all because
the overpopulation problem has never been and apparently never will
be positively addressed. The united voice of the world should be
screaming out that WE POPULATE AT OUR PERIL. So long as the mood
is universal, world economies would quickly adjust.
Thanks for posting the enlightening but alarming info.
--
Max Keon
Karl Johanson
"Steven Sharp" <sh...@cadence.com> wrote in message
news:3CF9663D...@cadence.com...
The US test used plutonium from a British Magnox reactor. The isotope
configuration is classified, but generally thought to be far closer to
weapons grade than power plant grade. Some sources assume around 10% Pu240.
Karl Johanson
Dirk Bruere
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:qoSM8.211077$xS2.15...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
The fact that it is classified suggests to me that the opposite is true.
Dirk
Jim Blair
>"jim blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>news:3CF007A5...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
>> The type of trailer sized module I am picturing would cost very little
>relative
>> to the cost of the power plant. Yes, it would need to operate only part
>of the
>> time AFTER the stored backlog of spent fuel had been processed. The main
>> advantage I see is not in extending the life of the fuel (but that would
>become
>> a factor if/when wide sacle use of nuclear power began to deplete the
>uranium)
>> but rather as a way to avoid the long term waste storage problem, and the
>> transport problem.
"Tim Perdue" <t...@gotocity.com> wrote:
>
>If you're talking about highly-toxic, radioactive, and deadly material, I am
>doubting that a trailer is going to work, if only because it needs lots of
>shielding and security.
Hi,
If the trailer module is located at the reactor site, the security problem
is already solved: all reactors already have security. The reprocessing
module would not require ADDITIONAL security (of course since 9/11 maybe
all reactors require some additional security, but THAT is a separate
issue)
>
>It is a fairly sexy idea to take this "waste" and stick it in a CANDU
>reactor and get 33% more energy out of it. If a nation's nuclear strategy
>were right, you could have the proper ratio of light-water reactors and
>CANDU reactors to really lower your fuel and waste costs.
>
>Tim
Yes. That was my point.
Question: can a light water reactor be retrofitted to become a CANDU?
,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
(_)
jim blair (jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. For a good time
call: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834
Gregory L. Hansen
Jim Blair <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>"jim blair" <jeb...@facstaff.wisc.edu> wrote in message
>>news:3CF007A5...@facstaff.wisc.edu...
>
>>> The type of trailer sized module I am picturing would cost very little
>>relative
>>> to the cost of the power plant. Yes, it would need to operate only part
>>of the
>>> time AFTER the stored backlog of spent fuel had been processed. The main
>>> advantage I see is not in extending the life of the fuel (but that would
>>become
>>> a factor if/when wide sacle use of nuclear power began to deplete the
>>uranium)
>>> but rather as a way to avoid the long term waste storage problem, and the
>>> transport problem.
>
>"Tim Perdue" <t...@gotocity.com> wrote:
>>
>>If you're talking about highly-toxic, radioactive, and deadly material, I am
>>doubting that a trailer is going to work, if only because it needs lots of
>>shielding and security.
>
>Hi,
>
>If the trailer module is located at the reactor site, the security problem
>is already solved: all reactors already have security. The reprocessing
>module would not require ADDITIONAL security (of course since 9/11 maybe
>all reactors require some additional security, but THAT is a separate
>issue)
We're getting rocks, from about the size of a dinner table to somewhat
larger. I suppose commercial reactors might be installing something
boring like dragon's teeth, but the NIST folks wanted something prettier.
So they're circling the reactor with chunks of granite that are fun to
climb on.
--
"For every problem there is a solution which is simple, clean and wrong. "
-- Henry Louis Mencken
Jim Blair
>"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net>
>... As you sieve out the uranium,
>the
>> > > ocean will get more and more diluted and progressively more expensive
>to
>> > > recover the uranium.
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>> >
>> > Rivers renew the oceans supply of uranium.
"Paul F. Dietz" <di...@dls.net>
>>
>> Not sufficiently quickly to matter for a global once-through
>> fuel cycle, though.
>> Paul
Karl Johanson:
>
>As I recall, the rivers add enough for us to get 10 times our current total
>power usage (not just electricity, but also transportation, heating, etc.)
>if we use breeders. Without breaders that would be around 10% of all our
>power without reducing the ocean's supply of uranium at all. Even if we did
>use 100 times as much for once through, that would leave us tens of
>thousands of years to develop breeders before we depleted the ocean's
>uranium significantly.
>
>I've never seen estimates for thorium in the oceans.
>
>Karl Johanson
>
>
Hi,
I think this entire conversation is off the mark. You guys are using
logic and applying economics. But the future of nuclear energy will be
determined by politics and perceptions.
I say the goal of research should be to eliminate the need to move the
waste from the current reactors. That may well cost more than making
additional uranium fuel rods. Sure "recycling" will make economic sense in
that "long run" when natural uranium is depleted (be that decades or
centuries) , but that is not my point.
My point is that ANY long term storage location will become the focal
point of opposition to nuclear (as Yucca Mountain is demonstrating) and
that when shipments actually begin the "Greens" will go Postal. Look at
Germany. Combine the various terrorists who WANT to use the spent fuel as
a weapon with the "Greens" who want to disrupt shipments to demonstrate
how dangerous nuclear waste "really is" add the use of press coverage and
political theater, and you should be able to predict the result.
On the power of perception over reality, did you see the recent USA TODAY
article on natural gas? We are expanding its use (much of that by
building new gas burning power plants) while production is dropping. We
may soon need to expand the importing of liquid natural gas (LNG). The
comment was that natural gas and LNG are "safer" that nuclear!!. No
figures were give on the number of people killed each year by natural gas
explosions.
Jim Blair
>While I can't speak for the Savannah River site, Hanford is not _that_
>far away. Venting at these "storage" facilities happens on a regular
>basis, and the winds may carry them far away toward the mid-west, or
>back toward the coast. Also, some of the containment facilities are
>known to leak, and while still considered minor, the Columbia River is
>well within range of the spreading contaminated water plume. Some
>critics would say the amount is minor. But considering that plutonium
>is deadly at tiny concentrations, it there a "safe" amount or
>exposure?
>
>Daniel B. Wheeler
>www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Hi,
In so far as low level radiation is a hazard, that is a point against
coal.
The result of the opposition to nuclear plants in Wisconsin during the
1960's and since has been the construction of large coal fired power
plants. Which give us mercury in our water and global climate change in
addition to increased deaths from lung cancer and asthma, not to mention
fly ash containing alpha emitters.
Jim Blair
>
>I believe it also turns out that by the time you load and decontaminate
>a spent-fuel cask at a reactor site and unload it at a reprocessing
>site, you've paid for most of the costs of shipping it. The actual
>over-the-road (or railroad) haul dosn't add much to the costs, so there
>isn't much economic benefit to locating small reprocessing facilities
>close to reactors. And after reprocessing, you still have high-level
>waste shipments, admittedly a much smaller volume than spent fuel.
>
>73,
>JohnW
>
Hi,
I'll repeat my reply to another branch of this thread in case you missed
it ;-)
I think this entire conversation is off the mark. You guys are using
logic and applying economics. But the future of nuclear energy will be
determined by politics and perceptions.
I say the goal of research should be to eliminate the need to move the
waste from the current reactors. That may well cost more than making
additional uranium fuel rods. Sure "recycling" will make economic sense in
that "long run" when natural uranium is depleted (be that decades or
centuries) , but that is not my point.
My point is that ANY long term storage location will become the focal
point of opposition to nuclear (as Yucca Mountain is demonstrating) and
that when shipments actually begin the "Greens" will go Postal. Look at
Germany. Combine the various terrorists who WANT to use the spent fuel as
a weapon with the "Greens" who want to disrupt shipments to demonstrate
how dangerous nuclear waste "really is" add the use of press coverage and
political theater, and you should be able to predict the result.
On the power of perception over reality, did you see the recent USA TODAY
article on natural gas? We are expanding its use (much of that by
building new gas burning power plants) while production is dropping. We
may soon need to expand the importing of liquid natural gas (LNG). The
comment was that natural gas and LNG are "safer" that nuclear!!. No
figures were give on the number of people killed each year by natural gas
explosions.
Jim Blair
> from http://www.anl.gov/OPA/frontiers/d1ee4.html:
>
>A nuclear fuel cycle based on Argonne’s pyroprocessing technology
>offers substantial improvements in waste management, proliferation
>resistance and economic potential compared to conventional processing
>technologies used overseas.
>
>Fuel recycling: The key step is "electrorefining," which removes
>uranium, plutonium and the other actinides (highly radioactive
>elements with long half-lives) from the spent fuel, while keeping them
>mixed together so the plutonium cannot be used directly in weapons.
>Spent fuel from reactors that use metallic uranium fuel can go
>straight to the electrorefiner. Spent fuel from commercial reactors,
>which consists of uranium oxide, would first undergo an "oxide
>reduction" step to convert it to metallic form. Next, the uranium and
>other actinides are sent to the cathode processor to remove residual
>salts and cadmium from electrorefining. The actinides are cast into
>fresh fuel, while the salts and cadmium are recycled back into the
>electrorefiner.
Hi,
So it looks like my proposal of re-processing modules located at reactor
sites is possible.
Supporters of nuclear should push for the development of such a unit as
their highest priority.
.....
>
>Also try searching on IFR (integrated fast reactor). This is a program
>killed by Clinton in 94. The proposed reactors were to do all
>processing on-site, with no actinides ever leaving the plant. You will
>get a lot of hits on activist sites, since they hate any technology
>that might reduce waste production because they hope to shut down
>nuclear energy via the waste issue.
>
As they are doing in Germany now. The German Greens support coal, not
only because it can replace nuclear, but as a way to boost the labor
unions. With the Greens on the side of Global Warming, black lung disease,
asthma and mercury, is there anyone in Germany on the side of the
environment?
Paul F. Dietz
> So it looks like my proposal of re-processing modules located at reactor
> sites is possible.
It's not clear that this pyroprocessing scheme would
get the recycled actinides clean enough for reuse in
a thermal reactor. The cadmium in particular is worrisome --
it's a strong absorber of thermal neutrons.
Paul
Karl Johanson
> In so far as low level radiation is a hazard, that is a point against
> coal.
And geothermal, and natural gas and thus LUZ style solar thermal plants
(which get around 25% of the energy from natural gass.
Karl Johanson
Gordon Couger
All we have to do for more nature gas is dig the wells and lay the
pipelines. The last time they leased my wife's place for gas they only took
a top lease down to 15,000 feet. The really good stuff is at 20,000 in the
Springer sands. Holes that deep are expensive to drill but the produce
millions of cubic feet of gas a day through a choke 2/3s the size of a
pencil lead. I saw them test one once any you could read a paper 2 miles
away. A third to a forth of Oklahoma has gas like that. There are oil fields
all over west Texas that have to be shut down because they can't get rid to
the gas so they shut them down until there is pipeline capacity for the gas.
Call Backer Huges and see what they say about US gas reserves.
--
Gordon
Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger
Daniel B. Wheeler
> In article <6dafee1b.02052...@posting.google.com>,
> Daniel B. Wheeler <dwhe...@ipns.com> wrote:
> >glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message
> >news:<acti82$ssr$1...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu>...
> >[snip]
> >> For starters, if the increased dose is less than typical variations of
> >> background rates, I'm sure we can call it safe, even if some people will
> >> yell as loudly as they can that no amount, however tiny, can ever be
> >> called safe.
> >It is a problem of cumulative background rates. Radioactive radon is
> >common as a by-product of recent volcanic activity in the Cascades
> >Mountains. Remember Mt. St. Helens in 1980?
> [snip]
> You get a radiation dose anywhere you are from background levels, which
> can vary. You get an increased dose whenever you go into a stone
> building, take a trip on an airplane, eat a banana, and so on, not to
> mention medical uses of radiation. You get a cancer risk from new car
> smell, from cigarette smoke (even second-hand), from grilled meats, and
> other sources that are usually considered safe.
>
> If you really want to minimize your radiation dose you'd be living in a
> grass hut by the ocean.
While in college, my chemistry professor told us (and I believed him)
that the amount of plutonium which would fit on the head of a pin is
sufficient to kill 10,000 people. Seems to me there is little in terms
of reasonable exposure to at least some of the radioactive elements.
There's a reason why WPPSS was shut-down in Washington, and why Trojan
Nuclear Reactor just north of Portland was also shut down several
years ago.
It appears that the new Ballard's Fuel Cell has potential to eliminate
the need for fossil fuels to a large extent. Based on boron (actually
sodium borohydride), the fuel cells need only water to operate, and
produce sufficient energy to drive a vehicle for about 150 miles at
this time. They are still in development, but individual powerplants
for homes are also a possibility, based solely on hydrogen production
on demand.
For more on this subject, see:
Daniel B. Wheeler
www.oregonwhitetruffles.com
Dale A Trynor
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<acvvb6$2i4$5...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu>...
[snip]
>
> > If you really want to minimize your radiation dose you'd be living in a
> > grass hut by the ocean.
>
> While in college, my chemistry professor told us (and I believed him)
> that the amount of plutonium which would fit on the head of a pin is
> sufficient to kill 10,000 people.
Most likely this requires a precise application to each persons lungs. I seam too remeber the enviro winners made some claim about a grape fruit sized ball of
plutonium, was enough to kill everything on earth.
> Seems to me there is little in terms
> of reasonable exposure to at least some of the radioactive elements.
Long ago I remember reading from the Encyclopedia Britanica about an estimate of the amount of radium in the first mile of the earths crust, it was a fantastic cube of
500 ft to a side. I wont even try to compare this to a grape fruit sized ball. Granted most of it is in rock and it would be much less total, in the first foot of the
earths surface. Regardless of all this, it still comes out with fantastic amount of radium, that is also much more radioactive than plutonium by about 100 times, not
even including all of its its radioactive byproducts. Its a reasonable assumption that we should have been dead many times over, if the envirowinners scares were
totally accurate. I have long ago learned to to trust them.
www.alternatescience.com
Dale A Trynor
> glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<acvvb6$2i4$5...@wilson.uits.indiana.edu>...
[snip]
>
> > If you really want to minimize your radiation dose you'd be living in a
> > grass hut by the ocean.
>
> While in college, my chemistry professor told us (and I believed him)
> that the amount of plutonium which would fit on the head of a pin is
> sufficient to kill 10,000 people.
Most likely this requires a precise application to each persons lungs. I
seam too remeber the enviro winners made some claim about a grape fruit
sized ball of
plutonium, was enough to kill everything on earth.
> Seems to me there is little in terms
> of reasonable exposure to at least some of the radioactive elements.
Long ago I remember reading from the Encyclopedia Britanica about an
estimate of the amount of radium in the first mile of the earths crust,
it was a fantastic cube of
500 ft to a side. I wont even try to compare this to a grape fruit sized
ball. Granted most of it is in rock and it would be much less total, in
the first foot of the
earths surface. Regardless of all this, it still comes out with
fantastic amount of radium, that is also much more radioactive than
plutonium by about 100 times, not
even including all of its its radioactive byproducts. Its a reasonable
assumption that we should have been dead many times over, if the
envirowinners scares were
totally accurate. I have long ago learned not to trust them.
www.alternatescience.com
Jeffrey Siegal
> While in college, my chemistry professor told us (and I believed him)
> that the amount of plutonium which would fit on the head of a pin is
> sufficient to kill 10,000 people. Seems to me there is little in terms
> of reasonable exposure to at least some of the radioactive elements.
http://www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/
http://www.ans.neep.wisc.edu/~ans/point_source/AEI/may95/plutonium_eff.html
> There's a reason why WPPSS was shut-down in Washington
Yeah, gross mismanagement by a bunch of local power boards that got in
way over their heads.
> and why Trojan
> Nuclear Reactor just north of Portland was also shut down several
> years ago.
Low energy prices at the time, and shortsightedness, just as with Rancho
Seco in California. It sure would have been nice to have both of those
plants up and running last year.
Graham Cowan
"Daniel B. Wheeler" included:
>
>
> It appears that the new Ballard's Fuel Cell has potential to
> eliminate the need for fossil fuels to a large extent.
> Based on boron (actually sodium borohydride), the fuel cells
> need only water to operate, and produce sufficient energy to
> drive a vehicle for about 150 miles at this time.
> They are still in development, but individual powerplants
> for homes are also a possibility, based solely on hydrogen
> production on demand.
There is no sodium borohydride (NaBH4) in nature.
Using fossil fuels to make it
(http://www.borax.com/pioneer25.html),
and then running cars on it is a way to
use a lot more fossil fuel per car kilometre.
Using nuclear or solar energy to make it is of course
a conceivable way for a vehicle to use no fossil fuel per km,
but that is also true with any other motor fuel you can name.
There is nothing especially fossil-fuel-substituting about NaBH4.
Daimler-Chrysler is experimenting with it in a
program called "Natrium", or was that the vehicle.
Anyway, its volume performance is tabulated under that name,
along with some other fuels', at
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html#lycbo .
--- Graham Cowan
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html --
"Boron: A Better Energy Carrier than Hydrogen?"
Gregory L. Hansen
I'm sure that depends on how it's "distributed". They're always saying an
ounce of plutionium "when properly distributed", etc. If you just eat a
pinhead worth of plutonium, chances are it would pass right through you
without incident. I can't think of any way to kill 10,000 people with a
pinhead worth of plutonium except to surgically implant it in fast-growing
tissues, and then they'll have an increased risk of cancer over their
lives, and it may take decades before you get enough statistics to
definitively say it's killing anyone at all. There is plutonium in the
very air you breathe, floating around since above-ground nuclear testing.
Not much, but you're breathing it. But, radiologically, there's nothing
special about plutonium versus radon, potassium-40, carbon-14, cosmic
radiation, and other sources that nobody really thinks to be alarmed
about. We evolved in a radioactive environment, we have DNA
repair mechanisms, and there is some controversial evidence that low
amounts of radiation is beneficial.
Did you know an ounce of lead can kill everyone on the planet, if it's
properly distributed? Shoot them, one at a time, recover the bullet, and
reload.
Randy Poe
>
> "Daniel B. Wheeler" wrote:
> > While in college, my chemistry professor told us (and I believed him)
> > that the amount of plutonium which would fit on the head of a pin is
> > sufficient to kill 10,000 people.
>
> Most likely this requires a precise application to each persons lungs. I seam too remeber
> the enviro winners made some claim about a grape fruit sized ball of
> plutonium, was enough to kill everything on earth.
I've heard the same kind of numbers. More recently I've seen the
opposite
claim, that you could practically pour plutonium on your breakfast
cereal like sugar and eat it, that you could fill your bathtub with
nuclear waste and bathe in it, with no ill effects.
I suspect those claims are similarly overstated.
>
> > Seems to me there is little in terms
> > of reasonable exposure to at least some of the radioactive elements.
The level of background radiation is known. And for the most part we are
adapted to deal with its effects.
>
> Long ago I remember reading from the Encyclopedia Britanica about an estimate of the amount
> of radium in the first mile of the earths crust, it was a fantastic cube of
> 500 ft to a side. I wont even try to compare this to a grape fruit sized ball. Granted most
> of it is in rock and it would be much less total, in the first foot of the
> earths surface. Regardless of all this,
Regardless of that?
If you only look at the first foot compared to the first mile, you're
talking about 1/5000 of the amount you quoted, say 250000 cubic feet.
The land
area of the earth is about pi*(4000^2) = 50 million square miles
(assuming 1/4 of the surface area is land).
That means each square mile contains 25e4/5e7 = 0.005 ft^3, or a cube
about 2 inches on a side. In each ACRE is 1/640 of this, amounting
to a cube about 6 mm on a side. Spread out over an acre. Assumed in this
calculation to be buried to depths of a foot, but probably actually
buried
much deeper in bedrock.
> it still comes out with fantastic amount of radium,
No, it doesn't.
I don't recall the "enviro-whiners" ever claiming that there wasn't
background
radiation on earth.
- Randy
Michael L. Coburn
>
>
> "Daniel B. Wheeler" included:
>>
>>
>> It appears that the new Ballard's Fuel Cell has potential to
>> eliminate the need for fossil fuels to a large extent.
>> Based on boron (actually sodium borohydride), the fuel cells
>> need only water to operate, and produce sufficient energy to
>> drive a vehicle for about 150 miles at this time.
>> They are still in development, but individual powerplants
>> for homes are also a possibility, based solely on hydrogen
>> production on demand.
>
> There is no sodium borohydride (NaBH4) in nature.
> Using fossil fuels to make it
> (http://www.borax.com/pioneer25.html),
> and then running cars on it is a way to
> use a lot more fossil fuel per car kilometre.
So you are saying that this boron stuff is consumed in the
process of converting water to power? Or are you saying that
more energy is required to create the boron stuff than that
which you get from the water? Are hydrogen fuel cells on
a par with superconductivity or perpetual motion?
--
Mike Coburn
"It's the tax system, stupid. No, it's the ludicrous
banking system. Well, actually, its both. With proper
consideration we find these injustices are made
possible by the lack of representation of The People
in their government". -- http://GreaterVoice.org
Graham Cowan
Some of the lower-rent ones claim that background radiation
is all really due to uranium mining.
Don Libby
>
> "Daniel B. Wheeler" included:
> >
> >
> > need only water to operate, and produce sufficient energy to
> > drive a vehicle for about 150 miles at this time.
>
> Using fossil fuels to make it
> (http://www.borax.com/pioneer25.html),
> and then running cars on it is a way to
> use a lot more fossil fuel per car kilometre.
Borax, eh? Maybe I'd get better "non-fossil" milage using a
twenty-mule team to pull my car, but then, I'd have to substitute
carbohydrates for hydrocarbons. And mules are onery critters.
-dl
Dirk Bruere
"Graham Cowan" <gco...@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:3D075AB8...@eagle.ca...
>
>
> Some of the lower-rent ones claim that background radiation
> is all really due to uranium mining.
IIRC Uranium occurs naturally in soil at about 7 tonnes per sq km.
Of course, this is *natural* Uranium, not the deadly depleted variety used
in armoured warfare:-)
Dirk