After more discussion of how it could be possible to send the nuclear waste into space, I again want to reiterate the idiocy of the basic idea of blasting a relatively rare and valuable resource into space instead of using it!
Yes, part that decays with half-lives of say 10 or less years could be used, but separating them from others is too costly - Why that part of the waste is just allowed to decay in storage pools. Then the fuel rods are, often I think, reprocessed to recover the "un burnt" fuel still in them. I don't know much about this, but understand that only a small part to the fuel is utilized before the build up of by products tends to poison the reactions by (neutron capture I think)After more discussion of how it could be possible to send the nuclear waste into space, I again want to reiterate the idiocy of the basic idea of blasting a relatively rare and valuable resource into space instead of using it!
What isotope(s) do you refer to?
I know they do. I think US may send them some material to reprocess.* I admire France's large** government run nuclear energy program. They have safety first POV and don't let private companies design reactors and worse, the control rooms.Well, heck, just the plutonium and U-235 could be reprocessed into MOX fuel without much fuss. France does this regularly.
Not more costly than blasting it into space, no. More costly than storing it in even an absurdly expensive warehouse, yes, but...Yes, part that decays with half-lives of say 10 or less years could be used, but separating them from others is too costly....
"Valuable" is of course relative, but essentially all (99+%) of nuclear waste is useful material. 95% is U238, which is all-but non-radioactive and is useful for things that other heavy metals are useful for (ballast, armor, bullets). Most of the rest is re-usable radioactive material (as fuel or in medicine).What isotope(s) do you refer to?
No, only costing less than blasting it into space (and only costing marginally more than discarding it forever in a mountain in New Mexico).You seem to asserting that currently valuable matter (worth more than cost of recovery and separation) is now being discarded or wasted.
I told more than five years ago, how to dispose of the "aged radioactive waste" after "the unburnt" fuel was recovered and re-posted idea here. It is at least 10 times cheaper (on life cycle basis) than what is currently done and much safer too. You need to compare to that (or even the stupid, not safe from terrorists) current policy - You can always invent an alternative (not useful) that is more costly but hard to find /invent one more expensive than sending waste to the sun....No, only costing less than blasting it into space (and only costing marginally more than discarding it forever in a mountain in New Mexico).
No it would be more than 10,000 times more expensive and at least dozens of times more risk to people as launch rockets do explode compared to suggestion I made 5-years ago and reposted idea in this thread here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...s-to-the-sun&p=3152232&viewfull=1#post3152232
From a life cycle cost POV my suggestion is at least 10 times cheaper (and also safer) than current practice.
Here is link to the 5-year old post for more details: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?50995-Nuclear-waste&p=934547&viewfull=1#post934547
In France every control room is the same (or one of a couple government designs) The three mile island control room was I understand it designed by the power company's public relation division. It was all on one wall across from the elevated windowed visitors gallery - good PR but bad safety.
Not what was reported at the time (first week or 10 days afterwards). I was living in Baltimore area and followed all I could read then. Interviews with TMI workers, etc. in newspapers & TV etc. If that were true, why did the called in experts not understand what the gages were telling, get wrong idea that a hydrogen bubble had formed, making it necessary to vent to avoid full melt down of the exposed tops of the fuel rods the bubble was or could cause?It was quite similar to every other reactor control panel in the US at the time.* ...
If that were true, why did the called in experts not understand what the gages were telling, get wrong idea that a hydrogen bubble had formed, making it necessary to vent to avoid full melt down of the exposed tops of the fuel rods the bubble was or could cause?
You even agree in part that post TMI, control room were made more uniform with common labels on gages etc.
Do you know what day TMI came on line? I forget the year, but that date was 31 December, with some of the safety back up cooling pumps still to be installed!
that had nothing to do with the accident, but shows why "for profit companies" should NOT be in charge of the nuclear power plants.
Exactly my point - and how France did it differently from the "get-go." I'll bet if they later added a new gage, they retrofit it to ALL reactors in France and installed it in exactly the same location, to avoid the confusion the US system's of "Every control room is Unique," local design lay out by profit making company, which specifies and pays for it.Because reactor control rooms, at that point, had just been evolving without much thought put into them. There were a lot of gauges added on later, and rather than mess with the overall layout, they just put them somewhere new. ...