Nuclear Waste

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal

There are claims such as we don't want "Chernobyl" or "Nuclear Waste". In this post, we will be discussing nuclear waste concerns. It turns out that nuclear waste is not a very large problem, if science not politics handles the problem. This is why science must handle it and unfortunately it has not received adequate funding, thus many amazing reactors have not been developed. Gov't shuts down a lot of these important projects even though they are not resource intensive. If I remember correctly, the Dept. of Education consumes $ 80 Billion/year and what have they accomplished? A IFR style reactor under research was shut down and consumed $90 million a year. The Yucca Mountain Project consumed $13 billion, total and it was shut down also.

Nuclear Waste:

* A significant amount of nuclear spent fuel is reused and only a small amount becomes waste.

*The half life of Nuclear waste depends on the reactor it is generated in. Most high-level waste generated by light-water reactors (standard 1960 style plants) has a half life of 10,000 years compared to 800 in an IFR style reactor. We need to design and construct reactors similar to IFRs, if we are serious about high-level waste.

*Not all nuclear waste is highly radioactive. A significant amount is low-level. Ironically, low-level waste can be found in the parking-lot of these plants. However some nuclear waste needs to be safely stored for thousands of years. However, if we had the tech, it would be cool if we could ship it to the moon. But, we could safely store it in depositories; this is very efficient at containing the radiation because it has to escape through hundreds of feet of rock. The Yucca mountain one was designed to store waste safely for 10,000 years.

*Nuclear Waste can be used in 4th generation Reactors as fuel. However, these reactors are under R&D and have not been constructed with the exception of breeder style reactors. We need to build more breeder reactors and subsidize R&D. Breeders have the potential to recover 95% of nuclear waste and turn it into electricity. To prove that these are economically viable, France has one that has an output of a 0.6 gigawatts; it has been operating for 36 years and still is. 80% of their electricity is nuclear and they are enjoying the economical and environmental benefits.

*70,000 tons of nuclear waste has been generated in the U.S since the beginning of these plants (1960s). A typical coal plant emits 3,500,000 tons of co2 per year. Nuclear Plants do not emit that much waste, about 1 ton/year.

*Nuclear waste can be sent to a reprocessing plant and recycled back into fuel. 28% of France's waste is reprocessed. Obama banned it in the U,S because he was worried terrorists might hijack the plant and steal fuel for nuclear bombs. If this is a valid concern, and it is, then spend the extra money to guard the plant, not ban it.

*Overall, Nuclear waste is a serious issue that needs to be taken very seriously. However, if we have the brightest people and we listen to them, there is little to be worried about.