Warning Future Generations About Nuclear Waste 616
Smivs writes "How do we warn people 10,000 years in the future about our nuclear waste dumps? There is a thought-provoking essay in the The Guardian newspaper (UK) by Ulrich Beck concerning this problem. Professor Beck also questions whether green issues are overly influencing politicians and clouding our judgement regarding the dangers of nuclear power."
Orr we could (Score:5, Informative)
Reprocess the waste, and then "burn" the long term waste off in breeder type reactors.
We can get 10,000 year hazardous waste to 100 year hazardous waste....
Dupe right out of 2006 (Score:4, Informative)
Abissal plains are better (Score:5, Informative)
In subduction zones part of the material keeps getting pushed around the edge for a long time before being dragged under. In 10000 years a lot of the material would still be sitting there.
But there are some parts of the ocean bottom that have remained stable for at least a billion years. We could enclose the material in glass or ceramic cylinders and bury them in the bottom of the sea. If anyone has the technology and the motive to dig 100 meters in mud that's under 5000 meters of water, one can assume they will have knowledge of the dangers of radioactive material.
Besides, that's a good way to keep it away from terrorists, too. Even if they could locate the exact spots where to dig, they wouldn't want to go to so much effort, there are easier ways to accomplish their ends.
No highly esteemed deed is commemorated here (Score:4, Informative)
Deep time (Score:3, Informative)
Wow. It's not like Gregory Benford addressed this same problem [amazon.com] back in 2000 or anything. Nope. This is a brand-new problem that nobody's thought about before.
Re:We don't (Score:1, Informative)
Re:We don't (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, there is little reason to worry about the long term if we use an intelegent reactor design.
The Integral Fast Reactor design's only waste products have a half life of 90 years or less, or 211,100 years or more. The latter components clearly give off very little radiation per unit time, so they can basically be ignored. It is the other components that give off significant radiation. However, within 200 years the waste radiation levels are no greater than that of natural ores. This means that it is reasonably safe to just bury it.
The design has other advantages too:
Of course, there are a few downsides, the most notable is the fact that the plant would have higher construction costs than most, and would have higher cost per kilowatt than most.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor [wikipedia.org] for more information on this reactor design.
This has been studied before (Score:4, Informative)
For the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [energy.gov], this is the solution that was developed:
Permanent Markers Implementation Plan, United States Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [energy.gov] (PDF)
Some brainstorming that led to the above document--this contains some of the more "exotic" ideas that were considered:
Expert Judgement on Markers to Deter Inadvertent Human Intrusion into the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant [sandia.gov] (PDF)
Excerpts in HTML format [downlode.org]
Overview of warnings for Yucca Mountain [doe.gov]
Basically, the idea is to take a multi-layered approach, starting with simple "Danger" warnings (both symbolic and in current languages, large scale and small), and finishing with detailed scientific information about what we will have buried. There will be instructions to add new structures with translations into whatever languages will have arisen in future societies. Sturdy but low-value materials will be used. There are a lot of other considerations; the "Expert Judgement..." document is an interesting read.
I agree with the other posters saying that reprocessing should make all of this moot, though.
Old News - U.S. gov't is already researching (Score:4, Informative)
Re:If we've gone back to the stone age (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, when you say "ivory-tower leftist", you're putting him in "American" terms. He's actually German. They have an (irrational?) phobia of nuclear power over there. In fact, they passed a law recently that all of their nuclear power stations have to be decommissioned within the next 5-10 years. They're re-thinking that now due to the carbon emissions problem, but the die-hard greens are talking "constitutional amendment" to force a permanent ban.
Heck, I have some friends from Germany, and they've told me about devices you can buy there which are designed to "shut off power if they detect electricity from nuclear plants". Yes, I don't even think that's possible.
The ingrained, instinctive dislike of nuclear power is really kind of nutty when you think about it, and I'm not sure where it comes from. Maybe due to being on the front lines between the nuclear-equipped Americans and Soviets during the cold war?
Re:We don't (Score:3, Informative)
That is not the case here in Canada.
All the 'spent' fuel from our reactors is still being stored 'temporarily' in pools of water on the reactor sites.
I don't think it is the case in the USA either.
Folks are still battling away trying to come up with a long term storage site and system.
The 'under a mountain' (yucca mountain or something like that?) plan was the leader last time i checked.
It is still a long way from actually happening.
I can understand your confusion though. The 'bury it under a mountain' plan has been 'a decade away' for 50 years.
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:self-solving? (Score:3, Informative)
Sometimes I think calling the public "ignorant" is too kind...
Re:If we've gone back to the stone age (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:1, Informative)
Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer...
This continues to be perpetuated, but it is inaccurate, at best:
http://atomicinsights.blogspot.com/2006/01/picking-on-jimmy-carter-myth.html [blogspot.com]
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq60-14.htm [navy.mil]
Not trying to pick on you, as what you wrote was sensible, just tired of seeing this "President Carter, nuclear expert" myth.
- T
Re:Abissal plains are better (Score:3, Informative)
Funny thing is, it doesn't. In the last fifty years several nuclear submarines were lost in the seas. None had radioactive leaks strong enough to locate them. To find a lost nuclear submarine, you have to go through the same process it takes to find any sunken ship, find a trail of debris in the bottom of the ocean and track it down to the main disaster area.
Re:You can still be a Nuclear Enthusiast! (Score:3, Informative)
1. That's the thing, in NEVADA it might be a political death sentence - but it's mostly over the storage of long term, unrecycled nuclear waste. What I'm proposing would probably cut the opposition by a huge portion - storage of less material that'll remain dangerous for a much shorter period of time.
2a. We don't see more closed systems because it costs more, is the simple answer. A system that is water-neutral(IE you load it with water once, maybe have the occasional flush), might have cooling systems that cost 10X as much as one that uses a river. Cheapest is single pass - you simply run river water through your big radiators. Next would be cooling towers - using evaporation of a portion of the water to cool things down. Most expensive is a dry air radiation system. With the first two systems, there's nothing preventing you from feeding the water into a municipal system afterwards.
3. And you'd be right, just see 2a. It can be cheaper just to shut down a couple months every 40 years than to build sufficient cooling. In the case I'm thinking of, what happened is that the temperature of the water in the river went over what the plant was allowed to release water at - blocking them from using the water for cooling, period. Possible solutions might be cooling towers(low river levels wouldn't help) or increased dry passive cooling ability, which would admittably be difficult given the heat wave at the time.
4. In many areas that's not sufficient anymore. Gas prices are hurting people.
5. I wasn't talking about construction deaths, I was talking about fatalities from traffic accidents/rollovers for the maintenance crews. Wind power is disbursed, and those turbines aren't maintenance free.
6. What you pay matters if you're looking at putting a turbine or solar panels up on your property. What the utility is willing to pay matters if you're looking to sell the power to the grid. And while you pay 15, I pay 8. I'd pay less if I used more than 1k kwh/month. Figure 2-3 cents to maintain the transmission equipment, leaving ~5 cents/kwh for baseband power. By that standard wind and solar are still not economical for baseload, and those figures probably don't include the necessary backups if the power goes out.
7. If it's truly going to save you money in the long run, home improvement loans shouldn't be hard to get. Yes, it's going to cost me some money - I'm going to need 2 meters, for example. One will be for my heating stuff(electric heater for the furnace, water heater), one will be for house power for on demand applications.
8. Love to see a game change. I've just seen so many technologies that offer promis but don't pan out. I've become a little cynical. Remember - cheap, reliable electricity is needed if EVs are to become economical. Nuclear power plants can provide that.