Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 21, 2018 2:59 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Feb 04, 2008 1:35 am 
Any ideas how that would work? Cesium isn't exactly chemically inert, you would have to keep it well separated from the water, and the effective range of gamma radiation in water couldn't be more than a few feet. How would you expose the wasteflow to gamma radiation without risking contaminating it with the isotope?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Feb 04, 2008 12:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 07, 2006 10:47 am
Posts: 68
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Sodium & potassium silicates & aluminosilicates are rock forming minerals with high melting points that are not very soluble in water except at very high temperatures. (Well above 100 °C)

I couldn't find cesium silicates listed in the CRC handbook, but I would expect them to have similar properties.

To be on the safe side we could clad cylinders or spheres of cesium silicate with stainless steel.

_________________
Jim Baerg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Feb 04, 2008 2:25 pm 
What about when the Cesium decays to Barium?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Feb 05, 2008 11:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Dec 07, 2006 10:47 am
Posts: 68
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Since the Barium isn't radioactive, I assume you're wondering if that would make the silicate more soluble.

Barium silicate is listed as being insoluble in water by the CRC Handbook.

I note that rather than having a nice crystal structure, these cesium silicate pellets would be a cesium silicate glass. This is much the same issue as the idea of turning all the fission product waste into a glass for underground disposal, except it's easier because you *know* the temperature is low & monitoring the water stream for leaks of radioactive material will be easier too.

_________________
Jim Baerg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Feb 05, 2008 2:20 pm 
My concern is that turning a monovalent ion into a divalent ion could disrupt the material and cause it to solubilize, warp, or shed particles.

If the scheme will work, how much Cs137 would we need? I suspect we'd need rather a lot of it to do more than a handful of treatment plants.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mar 29, 2008 7:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1946
Location: Montreal
A cautionary tale of Cs137....

Quote:
Video: Goiânia´s Legacy Two Decades On
Citizens of Goiânia were tragically caught unaware about the effects of old radiation source in 1987. As this report shows, the accident changed the nuclear world. Today Goiânia stands as a global schoolhouse for radiation safety and security.

See also text here.
.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mar 29, 2008 8:16 pm 
Using Cs137 to denature halocarbons wouldn't work anyway; They'd have to be very highly concentrated.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Waste to resources?
PostPosted: Dec 19, 2009 4:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 08, 2009 6:07 pm
Posts: 162
Location: Albuquerque NM USA
dezakin wrote:
... and xenon has potential demand growth options and commands a good price.


There may more demand for xenon than many people would expect, provided that it becomes plentiful and less expensive.

Argon is used between glass panes in high efficiency windows. Xenon would be more effective; it would be lost more slowly and transfer less heat by convection. For reasons that seem not to be totally understood, xenon is also a good anesthetic gas. There may also be other uses for it besides the more well-known ones, if there is enough available so that it is not too expensive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Dec 19, 2009 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jan 24, 2007 2:24 pm
Posts: 436
Location: Montreal, Quebec CANADA
jaro wrote:
A cautionary tale of Cs137....


While there is no doubt that Goiânia was a cluster f..k, in the broader picture of industrial pollution in Brazil it is a minuscule event. São Paulo's pollution is so bad its nickname is Cough city. It's pollution levels are fueled by poor infrastructure design and gasoline prices that are among the lowest in the world. A study by the University of São Paulo shows that 3500 people die in the city per year due to pollution related illnesses like respiratory diseases. The Goiânia accident killed 4, injured 28, and produced around 200 cases of detectable radiation poisoning.

The point here is that while Goiânia is held up as a horror story of the dangers of nuclear technology the fact of the matter is that the damage was limited, and the clean-up effective.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group