![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
ddstory.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsYou've probably heard the news. Germany has initiated a schedule for getting rid of all its nuclear power stations within the next decade. All the arguments for and against nuclear energy aside, I'm going to mention another one which is often being cited as a big ecological concern: the deposition of used nuclear materials. The main problem with it is that it requires hundreds, even thousands of years for radioactive materials to dissolve.
Scientists have been working on a way to possibly accelerate the process and shorten it to "just" a few centuries. But would that solve the problem? Seems like a good idea but still too expensive. That was actually the verdict which this idea got when the so called "transmutation" process was proposed for the first time - that is the reaction which turns heavy radioactive elements into harmless substances. Yes, sounds like alchemy, and in a sense it really is. But most call it just nuclear physics.
For many years, transmutation has been discussed as a possible solution for the nuclear waste issue. Today physicists and engineers like Joachim Knebbel from the Institute of Technology in Karlsruhe believe that transmutation could actually be economically beneficial. He's hoping to demonstrate this with an installation in Belgium which would take 10 years to build and would cost a billion Euro. It might sound crazy to you, almost as crazy as pouring so much money into a project like the LHC that's not certain to bring any results at all. But yeah, those Euros are crazy like that, aren't they?
On the other hand, bold technological and scientific innovation is a promise for economic progress as well, as history has shown many times.
So let's get back to the nuclear waste. The biggest problem is the so-called trans-Uranic elements like Plutonium, Americum, Neptunium and Kurium that are produced in nuclear reactors as an end product of fission. Although they constitute just 1% of the mass of all fuel elements inside, they're extremely radiotoxic and have a huge period of decay. Even one-millionth of a gram of Plutonium getting in your lungs is enough to cause cancer. And Plutonium-239 has a 24,000 year decay period.
In order to be able to transform trans-Uranic elements, they have to be separated away from the other debris. In lab conditions this has been done already. Then the dangerous elements have to be bombarded with neutrons and the result is elements with less mass and much shorter lifespan. For example Plutonium-239 would split into Cesium-134 (with just a 2-year decay period) plus Tenium-104 which is inert and harmless. As a bonus, a large amount of heat is released in the process, which could be used for producing electric energy.
Knebbel says that his team's purpose is to transform at least 99.99% of the dangerous trans-Uranic elements. In this case the nuclear waste wouldn't need to be buried for over 100,000 years but "just" 500 years. Compared to this, practically permanently depositing nuclear waste in underground "graves", the thing we're doing right now, looks like the unwisest solution of all.
Scientists have been working on a way to possibly accelerate the process and shorten it to "just" a few centuries. But would that solve the problem? Seems like a good idea but still too expensive. That was actually the verdict which this idea got when the so called "transmutation" process was proposed for the first time - that is the reaction which turns heavy radioactive elements into harmless substances. Yes, sounds like alchemy, and in a sense it really is. But most call it just nuclear physics.
For many years, transmutation has been discussed as a possible solution for the nuclear waste issue. Today physicists and engineers like Joachim Knebbel from the Institute of Technology in Karlsruhe believe that transmutation could actually be economically beneficial. He's hoping to demonstrate this with an installation in Belgium which would take 10 years to build and would cost a billion Euro. It might sound crazy to you, almost as crazy as pouring so much money into a project like the LHC that's not certain to bring any results at all. But yeah, those Euros are crazy like that, aren't they?
On the other hand, bold technological and scientific innovation is a promise for economic progress as well, as history has shown many times.
So let's get back to the nuclear waste. The biggest problem is the so-called trans-Uranic elements like Plutonium, Americum, Neptunium and Kurium that are produced in nuclear reactors as an end product of fission. Although they constitute just 1% of the mass of all fuel elements inside, they're extremely radiotoxic and have a huge period of decay. Even one-millionth of a gram of Plutonium getting in your lungs is enough to cause cancer. And Plutonium-239 has a 24,000 year decay period.
In order to be able to transform trans-Uranic elements, they have to be separated away from the other debris. In lab conditions this has been done already. Then the dangerous elements have to be bombarded with neutrons and the result is elements with less mass and much shorter lifespan. For example Plutonium-239 would split into Cesium-134 (with just a 2-year decay period) plus Tenium-104 which is inert and harmless. As a bonus, a large amount of heat is released in the process, which could be used for producing electric energy.
Knebbel says that his team's purpose is to transform at least 99.99% of the dangerous trans-Uranic elements. In this case the nuclear waste wouldn't need to be buried for over 100,000 years but "just" 500 years. Compared to this, practically permanently depositing nuclear waste in underground "graves", the thing we're doing right now, looks like the unwisest solution of all.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 10:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 11:17 (UTC)BTW That 1-millionth of a gram thing we often hear re Pu-239 is misleading. It is no different biologically than other radionuclides.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 17:19 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 17:58 (UTC)Actually I want one of these: http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2007/12/toshibas-home-n/
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 18:44 (UTC)Other options... maybe: Improved catalysts (http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/26095/?a=f), artificial photosynthesis (http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-03/video-artificial-photosynthesis-produces-enough-energy-power-house-one-bottle-water).
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 19:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 22:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 12:03 (UTC)I am not very confident that they will replace nuclear with anything other than really crappy energy sources. (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/what-8217-s-eating-germany/8305/)
I hope this process gives them pause to reconsider.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 17:17 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 19:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 12:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 17:09 (UTC)There are superior alternatives. The thorium link I posted below is one of them.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 20:22 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 00:47 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 11:10 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/6/11 01:35 (UTC)There's quite a bit of discussion around nuclear here at the moment. We only have one small research reactor in Sydney and no commercial nuclear power. There is a wide acceptance that we won't be going nuclear any time soon, but many people are starting to suggest that we should be building the base of a nuclear industry. This would involve putting in place the regulatory structures that we would require if we started building nuclear (things like waste and environmental regs etc.) as well as promoting nuclear science research. I've only just checked the thorium reserves, and it would make sense to me that we would start working in partnership with India to develop this technology. We already have intimate links with India through our education system and we're also selling them Uranium, even though they haven't signed the NPT. It makes sense that we should have it so that we have access to the technology, sites and materials and have the regulatory environment ready to go, if in say 30 years time the whole climate change thing is real and the techs we're currently banking on getting us out of it (carbon capture, gas, geothermal, wind and solar) don't manage to come through and we need to replace all of our coal plants with some form of reliable base load energy supply.
The uranium data looks best in graph form.
Date: 6/6/11 01:36 (UTC)Re: The uranium data looks best in graph form.
Date: 6/6/11 07:13 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 13:37 (UTC)So I got nothing.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 14:37 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 18:11 (UTC)The Earth's mas is about 6*10^24 Kg
You could fly the entire Earth into the Sun and whatever didn't get vaporized and turned into solar wind would simply get absorbed without even a ripple. You could fit many earths into one average sized sunspot. Whether it is radioactive or not makes absolutely no difference.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 19:40 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 00:05 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 17:03 (UTC)Project NERVA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA)
NASA's current Mars plan uses a NERVA derivitive as it's performance was signifigantly better than current chemical propellants. Unfortunatly the enviromentalists will never let it fly.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 18:00 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 16:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 17:15 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 19:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 15:28 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 16:15 (UTC)Don't get me wrong. Nuclear waste is a serious issue, and I welcome all efforts to mitigate its effects. But the hyperbole behind nuclear waste can end up overshadowing the benefits of nuclear power. Nobody thinks nuclear fission is the ultimate power solution for our nation... but it's certainly a good stop-gap between coal and a clean future.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 16:29 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 17:13 (UTC)Nuclear waste isn't the only issue. Exceptionally high start up costs only a country could afford, exponentially rising price of uranium fuel, specialized manufacturing capabilities only some countries are capable of(the United States isn't one of them), custom parts for virtually every reactor considering the tendency for them to not be mass produced. And, more!
If you want a good solution, look at the thorium link I posted above.
(no subject)
Date: 3/6/11 20:59 (UTC)And odd as it is to agree with someone I usually disagree with, Root_Fu is also right that Thorium is better than the usual power sources. Until we run out of Uranium, however, people will keep this going just like with oil.
(no subject)
Date: 6/6/11 01:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 4/6/11 02:08 (UTC)Yet another insightful, deep and mind-boggling quote, but what the hell. It's Friday after all.
The best time to plant a tree is 10 years ago. The second best time is now.--Confucius
(no subject)
Date: 6/6/11 01:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/6/11 20:04 (UTC)You know why Germany is doing this dumb shit? (and yes it is dumb shit because there is nothing wrong with nuclear)
Because they are a net importer of energy. You think they would even THINK about abandoning nuclear if they didn't have France or Poland next door giving them sexy energy? They also have the biggest solar farm in the world, too bad Germany is one of the worst goddamn places for a solar farm, with low sun coverage and a bad angle.
(no subject)
Date: 6/6/11 20:17 (UTC)