Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently May 25, 2018 9:43 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Apr 01, 2017 11:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3584
Location: Alabama
Image

New Mexico used fuel project put to regulators

Nuke firm eyes site near WIPP for temporary waste storage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 02, 2017 3:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
The radioactivity of used fuel and its risks decline in a potential function mode. Right after extraction from the reactor it is very high...declining quickly. That means that it would make sense to store it in a final underground storage as soon as possible. Now it is 50 years after the commercial nuclear power plants started up. No final storage is built in any of the OECD countries. The current politics of playing a green horror show maximises risks and costs of the used fuel.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 03, 2017 2:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: NoOPWA
HolgerNarrog wrote:
That means that it would make sense to store it in a final underground storage as soon as possible.
I don't see how this computes. It would seem to be smarter not to employ "final underground storage" until the UNspent fuel has been extracted from the Fission Product wastes. THEN the wastes should be "stored" (disposed of) underground. Or undersea. Or not.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2017 4:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 22, 2013 2:27 pm
Posts: 262
Dear Kiteman,

Well the US has about 90 operational nuclear power plants generating about 2500to used fuel/year. That adds up to 100 - 150.000 tons of used fuel. If you put it in intermediate storage facilities it is to maintain and protect these facilities for decades and centuries. Cost will add up and up.

If you put it to Yucca mountain or a salt deposit it is well protected. If uranium mining becomes more expensive in a couple of centuries you can dig a new shaft (to establish a new mine in a depth of 800m costs 700 Mio. $, Glencore Ernest Henry data from annual report) and mine the used fuel. Radioactivity will be much lower thus costs of handling are as well far lower than today. Uranium, Pu and the fission products Tc, Ru, Rh, Pd and Ag can be extracted from it at far lower safety issues and costs as today.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 08, 2017 4:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2233
Cladding and other Zirconium metal components of used fuel should be recovered and pelletized for possible re-use. Pyro-processing using chloride/fluoride volatility in first stage may leave much less of waste. The uranium and the transuranics with primary sight on plutonium should be recovered and stored as future fuel. The fission products whose re-use cannot be visualized can be stored as waste, either on ground or underground.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 28, 2017 12:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: NoOPWA
HolgerNarrog wrote:
Dear Kiteman,

Well the US has about 90 operational nuclear power plants generating about 2500to used fuel/year. That adds up to 100 - 150.000 tons of used fuel. If you put it in intermediate storage facilities it is to maintain and protect these facilities for decades and centuries. Cost will add up and up.

So don't maintain and protect for centuries. Remove the actinides and dispose of the fission products. Use the actinides as fuel when you are able. If you want to remove the uranium and just store the other actinides, ok. But having the uranium around too adds nothing real to the risk.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 28, 2017 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1512
Reprocessing is mind numbingly expensive - and if you wait a couple of centuries reprocessing can be done with far less expensive facilities and without the devestating radiation fluxes that manage to do things like destroy optical fibres in minutes


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 28, 2017 12:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1332
Location: NoOPWA
E Ireland wrote:
Reprocessing is mind numbingly expensive - and if you wait a couple of centuries reprocessing can be done with far less expensive facilities and without the devestating radiation fluxes that manage to do things like destroy optical fibres in minutes
How expensive is molten salt reprocessing of nuclear fuels? Better not be "mind-numbingly expensive" or we can forgt Energy from Thorium.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Jun 12, 2017 8:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3584
Location: Alabama
Interim private storage could be best next step for nuclear waste, senator says

Quote:
“To ensure that nuclear power has a strong future in this country, we must solve the 25-year-old stalemate over what to do with used fuel from our nuclear reactors,” Alexander said. “To solve the stalemate, we need to find places to build geologic repositories and temporary storage facilities so the federal government can finally meet its legal obligation to dispose of nuclear waste safely and permanently.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 08, 2018 9:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3584
Location: Alabama
Activists protest Holtech's proposed nuclear waste storage facility near Carlsbad


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group