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."
Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:4, Funny)
Everybody knows that people in the future are afraid of Zeus.
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Funny)
Two words: Indiana Jones. That prick will take your shit and bring it back into a museum or something.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Funny)
(A pile of dead bodies is universal code for, "Danger!, stay away from here!").
except for a bunch of wierdo kids, whose parents have defaulted on their mortgage and are looking for pirate treasure.
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not a huge granite sculture of a human skull with thee eye sockets?
One of the official goals of the Yucca Mountain warning project is to prevent extra-terrestrials from accidental exposure (seriously). I don't think three eye sockets would necessarily mean much in that case.
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think a species advanced enough to master interstellar travel would have invented the geiger counter.
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Insightful)
Buried radioactive toxic waste is pretty tame compared to the various hazards of space and exploring unknown planets.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd think a species advanced enough to master interstellar travel would have invented the geiger counter.
Assuming, of course, that nuclear fuel exists on their home planet.
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Interesting)
The problem is that we have disallowed ourselves from further refining it to make it useful through the treaties meant to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
And to top it all off, the mix of plutonium isotopes produced by a fuel reprocessing reactor is unusable as nuclear weapons fuel. Warheads require minimum 93% pure Pu-239, which is produced by short-cycling uranium in a certain configuration of fission reactor. It was completely unnecessary to put a blanket ban on breeder reactors, as all that was necessary was to ban a certain type of breeder reactor. Jimmy Carter, a nuclear engineer, knew the difference but decided to appease the ignorant luddite anti-nuke crowd that made no distinction between nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants. By perpetuating the myth of "breeder reactor = nuclear warheads" from the executive office, he essentially saddled us with 30 years worth of dangerous nuclear "waste" that is really just nuclear fuel that's 90% unused.
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Funny)
I was going to say the best sign is:
"FREE FUEL. WE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO USE IT."
"HELP YOURSELF"
And, since too many caps are considered offensive by /.'s filter, let me add:
fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:4, Interesting)
Beck mentions them, but only gives a trivial example.
On the other hand, if I recall correctly, one of the local Native American tribes said something like: "You don't need signs. If people wander into the area 10K years from now, we will warn them for you."
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Put a picture of Zeus on them. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah but once viewed in a mirror it just becomes confusing:
"Dog eht fo eraweb".
self-solving? (Score:5, Funny)
I would think the increasing number of skeletal remains as one approaches the dump would be sufficient.
Re:self-solving? (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, that would probably work - instead of putting a sign up with a skull and crossbones you could manufacture non-biodegradable human remains and use those as your "sign". (thus avoiding the confusion mentioned in TFA)
Re:self-solving? (Score:5, Funny)
They'd probably just figure it was some sort of ancient burial ground and build a Pet Sematary next to it.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sometimes I think calling the public "ignorant" is too kind...
No highly esteemed deed is commemorated here (Score:4, Informative)
We don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Try answering the question without assuming that we managed to avoid having to go back to the stone age due to war, plague, famine, etc.
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Re:We don't (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We don't (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't agree more. People don't realize that we already have technology which can utilize 95% of what we consider nuclear waste to produce more electricity. Even better is what is left won't be dangerous after a few decades. The mentality behind this effort is simple FUD to keep us from creating more nuclear power. It's shameful neo-Ludditism.
Why people aren't buying waste... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why aren't people lining up to but nuclear waste? Maybe because it's effectively illegal to do anything with it other than store it on the site where it was produced and/or feed it into one of three(?) approved bureaucratic channels for permanent storage / disposal.
Just try announcing that you're going to set up a breeder reactor and write to a few people with nuclear waste asking what their "Buy It Now" price is, and see how that works out for you.
--MarkusQ
Re:We don't (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, who cares?
They won't have the ability to get 500ft underground, to penetrate 10ft thick steel/concrete walls, or to open the individual containment vessels (designed to withstand a cargo aircraft crash).
You don't need to worry about both ends of the question. Either future people will know what they've found, or won't have the ability to find or access it.
And even if they could - If we end up reverting to a stone age culture, we really don't deserve to share this planet, so let 'em all die of radiation poisoning from playing with the pretty glowy powder.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In that case, who cares?
They won't have the ability to get 500ft underground, to penetrate 10ft thick steel/concrete walls, or to open the individual containment vessels (designed to withstand a cargo aircraft crash).
They probably will eventually. If we're asking what will happen if we blow ourselves back to the Stone Age, well then that assumes we have survived, and humanity goes on. Humanity will learn, just as it always has. Humanity will progress from its new Stone Age to its new Bronze Age. They wi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just use a drawing of the drum itself, and have it surrounded by dead humans lying on the ground.
Re:If we've gone back to the stone age (Score:5, Insightful)
The article that sparked this Slashdot post is by some know-nothing Ivory tower far leftist. Full of 10 dollar words, long on speculation and short on facts.
Thank you! We have, of course, uranium and other naturally radioactive minerals in the earth right now. And yet we've mostly avoided exposure (except by early scientists who worked with them.) This author could have just summed his article into one sentence: I hate nuclear power.
If we end up back in the stone age it will be BECAUSE of people like Ulrich Beck who jump up and down about climate change, but then complain that no solution is good enough. THOSE are the people who would have us living back in time with no electric, no cars and eating berries and twigs because cows pass too much methane [latimes.com]!
Mr. Beck might be interested to know there is ALREADY a universal warning sign denoting radioactivity [wikipedia.org].
Perhaps if we add a "Mr. Yuck" symbol [wikipedia.org]....
Re:If we've gone back to the stone age (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, if you found a stone tablet in some ancient ruins, wouldn't it seem like a reasonable assumption that the writing on it was all the same language?
It is a reasonable assumption, but one that can be quickly validated or negated by examination of the tablet. Take the Rosetta Stone [wikipedia.org], for example. Even for non-linguists, it is easy to see that there are three different character sets being used. Even when the same (or a very similar) character set is being used, a message of sufficient length will often show indicators that a different language is being used. The fact that different languages are being used can also be indicated by layout.
As regards the question about warning labels, it makes sense to use an engraving or an inlay of some sort. This will allow the message to last for thousands of years, as well as indicate to future viewers that this message was intended for posterity. On said label, present several large symbols to indicate danger or death -- say, skull-and-crossbones (or a full skeleton image,) the Mr. Yuk [wikipedia.org] icon, and Clippy [wikipedia.org]. Then, in each language, write a brief "DANGER" message in a large font, followed by a more detailed warning in a smaller font. Follow the languages up with the same warning icons, to help reinforce the message. Something like:
Skeleton Icon . . . . . Mr. Yuk . . . . . Clippy
WARNING! this is a dangerous area. Do not dig here. Do not eat or drink from this area.
ACHTUNG! Dies ist eine gefährliche Gegend. Nicht graben hier. Arbeit nicht essen und trinken aus diesem Bereich.
ATTENTION! il s'agit d'une zone dangereuse. Ne pas creuser ici. Ne pas manger ou boire dans ce domaine.
(I would insert more languages here, but Slashdot's Unicode support is weak)
Skeleton Icon . . . . . Mr. Yuk . . . . . Clippy
Make the detailed warning about medium-sized paragraph or so, and use very simple sentence-structures. The corpus of the text would not likely be enough to allow a full translation, but with a dozen or so languages, there is a good chance that larger texts exist elsewhere in one or more of the languages that will provide the key words used in the warning message.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While a complex language, I'd think that it's a good one in that it's one that many people on earth know(in China, at least), it's got a long history behind it(therefore less likely to be lost, more likely to be rediscovered), and is in a different area - whatever takes us down might not take them down as bad.
Re:We don't (Score:5, Insightful)
You're assuming that progress continues and that we somehow don't blow ourselves up and have to start over.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
actually I see it the opposite way round.
In the short term (200-500 years), there is less chance of a industrial breakdown which might hamper our ability to detect radiation, and even if it does, I think our language will still be close enough to catch the gist of a warning sign (which should also still be intact if not exposed to the weather).
In the long term, chance of a complete technological break down is increased (although I suppose the chance of a recovery and relearning the necessary skills is incre
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.
Re:We don't (Score:5, Interesting)
I was thinking something similar, though I suspect it's about slightly more sophisticated logic. Something like this...
If our ancestors are sufficiently technologically advanced, they are overwhelmingly likely to have technology to detect and/or dispose of nuclear waste far more efficiently than we are. In this case, we don't need to warn them.
On the other hand, if our ancestors aren't sufficiently technologically advanced (to do the steps above) then they are also overwhelmingly likely not to have survived 10,000 years on a planet with global warming and 10,050 years of nuclear waste. In that case, we don't need to warn then.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Satellites can do this now. How do you think we detect who's developing nuclear power? It can't be the bunglers at the CIA. It's a bit of a non-issue, a conjecture better discussed in pubs.
Re:typically american. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, my ancestors are trying to warn me of danger, I must be careful.
Or more likely
Those silly ancestors, thinking that I wouldn't know anything that they don't.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
-nod- That line of reasoning always seems to work out well for Indiana Jones.
Re:typically american. (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm, if we are anything to judge by it will be:
Hey, the ancients wanted to keep people away from here. There must be buried treasure!
Re:typically american. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those silly ancestors, thinking that I wouldn't know anything that they don't.
For much of human history in Europe (roughly the thousand years from 500CE [wikipedia.org] to 1500CE [wikipedia.org]) it was accepted as fact that the ancients (i.e the Romans) knew far more than was known at the present time. There was a grain of truth to this.
You assume that a dismissive attitude to the knowledge of the ancients is a given. It isn't. Superstitious awe of a fallen civilisation can last a long time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But "all of that" of the Romans wasn't destroyed. There were still lots of texts and crumbling buildings. It just took a long time for the veneration of the texts "from the wise ancients" to die down enough for people to start experimenting for themselves. Galileo [wikipedia.org]'s observations that the Earth went around the Sun not vice versa were considered so radical in 1610 because it was different to what Ptolemy and Aristotle had said was the truth [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:typically american. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My Athlon XP 2000+ (from 2003), ran at 1.66GHz. My Core 2 Duo 8200 (from 2008) runs at 2.66GHz. Clock rate increase in five years: 60%. Unimpressive, I'm sure you'll agree.
I fished out some benchmarks I programmed when I was first playing with Python on the old machine. Still ha
Re:typically american. (Score:5, Insightful)
Notice the use of a period in 10.000? Look at his homepage, he's not American.
Fixed that for you.
My view as to why it won't matter in 1k years (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the deal. Assuming that nuclear fusion doesn't hit it off anytime soon, or fission just ends up being cheaper in many cases, it'll be far less than 10k years before we're digging the stuff up to run in breeder reactors. After all, current high level 'waste' is still 90-95% uranium.
I'd say less than 500, actually. Given active storage sites, language/skill drift won't be enough to really matter for the hazards - they'll probably want to re-assay the stuff again anyways. So, we're spending a massive amount of effort on something where it, honestly enough, won't matter. The remaining isotopes after reprocessing have shorter half-lifes, so again, much less hazardous in a shorter time.
To the point that if they're digging as deep as we're burying it, they already have substantial enviromental concerns anyways. So yes, they should be knowledgable.
Re:My view as to why it won't matter in 1k years (Score:4, Insightful)
i wish i had mod points for this post. We are in essence hiding fuel sources that will be very usable in 10 or so years. All of this because of the short sightedness of the enviro movement. I really can't believe exactly how much we have F'd up this planet with all the carbon burning power sources while we let nuclear power rot in the corner like an unwanted step child.
but wind power... (Score:4, Funny)
You can still be a Nuclear Enthusiast! (Score:5, Insightful)
1. They might be 'hard' but France has been operating one for years. I'd argue that we've made more progress with them than we have for economic solar.
2a. The amount of water needed can be varied. In any case, the 'huge' amounts water used is generally put right back into the source, just maybe downstream less than a mile, and the only difference is that it's slightly warmer. A larger flow allows more cooling, increasing efficiency, while putting the water back at even less of a difference. It becomes a matter of - as long as we have the water, might as well use it.
2b. Coal power [nbii.gov] suffers [ajc.com] from the same problem, normally using loads of water as well.
3. No research necessary, the steam techniques for nuclear and coal power are identical - just more expensive than having a convienent river or lake. Even ocean, though the salt presents it's own problems.
4. Newer plant designs, possibly prototyped in India or China are much cheaper, and at least the current administration is working on streamlining/reducing the regulatory costs. As for the plebes - well, most don't actively remember Chernobyl, much less TMI. With the environmental concerns, I see resistance to nuclear power weakening. If they get smart and use the nuclear plant in a cogeneration/trigeneration fashion to support some industry(such as ethanol, depolymerization, oil sand/shale processing or hydrogen), you can get your load balancing and increase the efficiency of the plant by a great deal.
5. I don't see how Wind&Solar can cover our needs economically - and safety wise nuclear power is so safe that I wouldn't be surprised if the extra miles workers end up driving to perform maintenance leads to enough accidents to make it less safe than nuclear.
6. The price point to beat isn't 20 cents/KWh, it's more like 5 cents/KWh.
7. Variable rate billing already exists, I'm having it installed for this winter. Living in the boonies, I'm currently on propane heat. With oil prices - propane is now more expensive than electric, so I'm switching to an off-peak electrical heating system. If I _really_ need heat during a peak period(or the electric just can't keep up), then the propane furnace will kick on.
8. I'd love to see a battery that stores twice the electricity at half the price, but I haven't seen anything that's convinced me that it's not vapor at this point. We do have high efficiency alternative methods that are cheaper at utility levels, and if electric cars ever become major there's a lot of tricks you could play with them, but I'm not holding my breath.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Finally, a Nuke guy who understands what he's talking about. Please understand that I don't think we can go 100% renewable inside of 25 or even 50 years, and please don't mistake me for someone who thinks that nuclear has no redeeming qualities. I pretty much favor anything that gets us off coal ASAP and oil as the next priority. Nuclear can be a big part of that, but I don't think it's necessary to count on nuclear in the >50 year time frame. Distributed infrastructure is a really smart way to go an
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dead on. I think the whole thing is nonsense created by people who want to appear insightful. "Think about the people 10,000 years from now" - wow, what a deep thinker!
If you follow this logic, then anything that could potentially exist for 10,000 years and might be fatal to someone needs to be properly labeled. You'll know who to blame when your Twinkie wrappers start getting weird hieroglyphics on them.
Re:typically american. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh No.
It's "Don't waste The People's tax money on something that private industry will find a profitable use for". Like using the nuclear waste for nuclear power generation in more modern reactors, thus turning what was once hazardous and incredibly long lasting nuclear waste into less hazardous and very short-lived nuclear fuel AND large amounts of clean energy to power our economy and green the planet.
Or we could waste BILLIONS of tax-payer money on some hair-brained far-leftist scheme that won't work and will actually make the problem worse. I mean, why do the SMART thing and let The People fix the problem through ingenuity and enlightened self-interest? Let's let the Ivory-tower intellectuals have a go at it first so that the proper solution ends up even MORE expensive that it otherwise would be. Look how well that's worked out for our Energy Policy!
*rolleyes*
Re:typically american. (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny, but I would think the threat of death to those poisoning others with nuclear waste would be a pretty simple mechanism.
Gov't doesn't have to tell use what to do with nuclear waste. Gov't just has to tell us what gov't is supposed to tell us: Don't fuck up someone else's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Law should severely punish those who do - but right now we've allowed corporations to buy their way out of all kinds of trouble... and THAT is your "massive externality".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are talking about an ideal government that turns its nose up at every bribe and has a constant and competent concern for the wellbeing of its citizens. Yeah fucking right.
Either a government controls commerce itself (and we know how that turns out) or a government runs the country according to business interests, in which case business interests are essentially government, and you are in the same boat - albeit with competitive forces providing enough of an efficiency boost to stop the whole thing collap
Re:typically american. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:typically american. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its actually the right thing to do in this case.
Any monument that they could build that would stand the test of time would only attract attention to the site. People are inquisitive and have no respect for the past. Its not like we believed any of the curses when we raided the tombs of Egypt. Why would it be any different for our future citizens? The scarier that the site is made to look the more people will be interested in it.
The site itself is hundreds of feet underground and in the middle of nowhere. The chances it being found if left unmarked are very very very small.
Personally I believe that we are going to be digging up our trash and other waste in the next few hundred years as a fuel source. In that case it would be nice to know where at that radioactive waste went.
Re:typically american. (Score:5, Funny)
This didn't work very well with the dinosaurs. Having discovered the dangers of global warming, they hid their precious oil and coal reserves deep below the surface of the earth. We managed to dig them up long before discovering their dangers!
I kid, I kid.
Re:typically american. (Score:4, Insightful)
Radioactive decay is exponential so in ten thousand years, the radiation given off by our "nuclear waste" will be about the same as the ore would have been if we hadn't done anything with it!
Thats ... typically american. "Don't do anything, it'll fix itself" ... *sigh*
I suppose that means you've tested your tap water for radioactive and toxic heavy minerals and your home for radon gas.
Re: (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' pla
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....
Re:Orr we could (Score:5, Insightful)
Which we could then encase in leak proof containers and dump them in a subduction zone.
Plenty of those around, so just dump it back in the Earth without having to guard it against earthquakes - in fact we'd like those to happen.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that it seems the best way of getting rid of it. It'll even be recycled eventually. The biggest stumblinng block for that at the moment is international treaties restricting disposal of hazardous waste at sea.
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.
Yeah, don't use them for energy or anything ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Orr we could (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Orr we could (Score:5, Interesting)
The IFR is not actually a proliferation risk. The Wiki notes that it is easier to enrich natural uranium than to create weapons-grade material from the fuel. And the waste has no actinides at all, making it worthless for nuclear weapons. The only reason it was killed was because keeping it around would give the appearance of not doing enough to prevent proliferation, rather than it being a real risk. In other words, it was killed for political reasons, not technical.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We are letting a tiny, tiny minority of small minded psychopaths determine the technological evolution of the human race, simply because we are scared.
This is the way it has been up to this point, on this old planet of ours.
Re:Orr we could (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Orr we could (mod up both) (Score:5, Insightful)
We need THESE kind of technologies, NOW. Not 20 years from now.
I would also note to damburger that the petty despots and terrorists only have power because of state sponsored nuclear terror was practiced live and in action on civilians by the USA (viz Nagasaki and Hiroshima) and held the world hostage in the fear mongering practice of the Cold War by the USA and CCCP. I agree with damburger that it is sad that a small group of asshats is making life exceptionally difficult for the rest of humanity. Remember when you could go to Mexico or Canada and use your Driver's License as ID? Remember a time before the DHS? I do.
This is all a problem of risk assessment which humans largely suck at. 3000 people died on 9/11, and suddenly a multi-billion dollar dept is thrown together making everyone's travelling life difficult and illegal to take cosmetics or liquids on board and all manner of other over-reactive legal nonsense. Every year 50,000 people die on the highways, but I don't see them making cars illegal. How many people died at 3 mile island? Oh that's right - none. Did it shorten some people's lives? Yes. However, the proper response would have been to build IFRs and subcrits, not ban them altogether. Chernyobl is a different deal - that was people being stupid and destructive, so many people died there. IFRs and subcrits and pebblebeds - these are all VASTLY safer technologies, and Mister and Missus John Q Smith from Anytown USA need to pull their heads out of their asses NOW, and get with the program if they have ANY hope of keeping the lights on in 20 years.
I don't fancy freezing in the dark, as it would result in the disappearance of the forests, and THAT would suck...
RS
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This leads to something I've always wondered.
We have yet to achieve nuclear fusion that can "break even" and produce more energy than it consumes.
But we have achieved relatively simple devices that do a very good job of generating neutrons (such as the Farnsworth Fusor). They operate at a net loss - But what if you use such a device to bombard fissionable material with neutrons? The idea is similar - The fissionable material would normally be sub-critical, you would effectively "turn it on" by turning on
The Strategic National Plutonium Reserve (Score:5, Interesting)
The parent is right. I don't know a whole lot about Nuclear Physics, but it's something I've been trying to read up on lately. The thing about 'spent' nuclear fuel, is that it still does have, as the parent points out, the potential to be reprocessed and burned again. I'm not entirely clear on this, but from what I've read, I think they can reprocess it quite a few times, until it's eventually at a fairly low energy and stable state to where, like the parent said, it's only dangerous for a short time.
What people don't realize is back in the 70's, the US was looking into the possibility of setting up breeder reactors to reprocess fuel. The Carter administration made the decision to, for the time being, defer re-processing the fuel, with the given reason that they were concerned about the ability to secure the Plutonium which is produced in the re-processing. That is, breeder reactors process 'spent' Uranium into a mixture of Uranium and Plutonium, I think (which can then be used as a fuel for a plutonium power reactor). The problem is, if someone diverted even *very small* amounts of the plutonium, which might be hard to detect because of how small an amount is missing, they could over time possibly accumulate enough material to build a small but powerful bomb, or at least a dirty bomb. Steal a few grams here, a few grams there, eventually you have a few kilograms.
Plus, there was an economic argument against it at the time - Uranium was cheap and abundant, so it was simply cheaper to keep burning 'new' Uranium, than to reprocess the spent Uranium. My understanding is that, at least currently, some of the processing and enrichment necessary to turn it into Plutonium fuel, hasn't been figured out how to do very econically effectively. There have been various Breeder reactor's put up in other countries, I think I read there are some in Europe and Asia, but so far the current designs, I guess, haven't turned out to be very economically competitive against other energy sources.
Personally, as I indicate in my subject for this post, I view Yucca Mountain not as a waste site, a dumping ground, but more like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We are saving the spent Uranium until the time we need it and and have figured out the technologies necessary to efficiently and cheaply reproccess it, and how to secure it better. Because it stays 'hot' for 10000 years, it means we have plenty of time in which to figure out how to reprocess it and make an economically viable energy source out of it. In that regard, the extremely long time spans might be quite to our advantage, as it means we aren't, really, losing significant potential energy each year it's sitting in storage. In the meantime, we just keep buying 'new' Uranium and building up our strategic reserve.
Re:Orr we could (Score:5, Funny)
Easy, we don't (Score:5, Funny)
Dupe right out of 2006 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Dupe right out of 2006 (Score:5, Funny)
Giger counters? (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll provide plans so the ignnorant people of the future can build one of these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger_counter [wikipedia.org]
I for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome our new sociologist overlords
From the article:
I can't think of a better person to solve our energy crisis than a sociologist. They have insights that we scientists and engineers simply lack. They understand how to guide policies based on feelings and such, whilst we are just stuck with our equations and physical laws.
I disagree with him, but that is probably due to my dogmatic, close minded acceptance of the laws of thermodynamics. Clearly, his subjective interpretation of mass human behaviour gives a much better insight into future energy policy.
Re:I for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Really, don't you think that sums it up nicely?
Re:I for one... (Score:4, Insightful)
I know it was meant to be irony - but ironically, you were right.
He is not solving our energy crisis or any other technical problem. He is looking for solution to a problem which is much more sociological than technical:
How do we make sure that important information is passed on to our descendants for thousands of years?
I am an engineer, and I would certainly consider the typical engineer unfit for solving this type of problems.
WARN them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, they are going to be actively seeking out these uber rich pockets of energy, that we have the gall (or stupidity) to call waste.
Ancient Egyptian medicine containers... (Score:3, Interesting)
In ancient Egypt, in the time of the Pharoahs, medicine was stored in specially made clay pots which had a face moulded into the pot. In that way, the patients could differentiate between cooking herbs and medicinal products.
Maybe a giant scary face would be one way. But there was an early slashot article where the solution was to have the area covered with black marble and have lots of sharp points triangles sticking up out of the ground.
Re:Ancient Egyptian medicine containers... (Score:5, Funny)
the solution was to have the area covered with black marble and have lots of sharp points triangles sticking up out of the ground.
Terrible idea. Such an environment would just attract the goth kids from 12008. They would loiter around reciting bad poetry and drinking absynthe until the radioactivity conferred unto them superhuman powers, which they would then use to conquer the world and enslave us all.
Fuck people, try to think about the long term consequences of your actions!
We don't have to. (Score:3, Insightful)
How do we warn people 10,000 years in the future about our nuclear waste dumps? We don't because we don't have to because we don't have to store waste for 10,000 years.
It is possible to reprocess [doe.gov] fuel to remove the actinides, which have a long decay time, and recycle them into new fuel. The remaining radioactive waste has a much shorter decay time, on the order of a few hundred years.
We should be reprocessing anyway. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no reason to make waste that's dangerous for 10,000 years. In advanced countries like France, which has the cleanest air and the cheapest power in Europe, the waste from its many reactors is separated and the heavy atoms (which are responsible for almost all long-term radioactivity of unprocessed waste) are fissile and are used to make more electricity.
They thought about making dumping sites for what remains (and it's far less dangerous than the 10,000-year figure), but nobody liked that, so the waste is stored at the plant itself waiting to be used for something in the future.
I'm pretty sure that we'll need that stuff for something, and it will be a pain to dig it up.
With proper reprocessing, reactor waste can be made less radioactive than the mined ore in a span of 300 years, so nuclear power could potentially reduce the radioactivity in the world.
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.
we don't, we burn it in breeder reactors (Score:5, Insightful)
breeder reactors use 10x the amount of fuel of regular reactors, produce 10x the amount of power, produce 1/10th the amount of waste, and what waste that is has a half life of only a century or two
so how come we don't use breeder reactors?
because they can be used to make plutonium
however, given the choice between dramatic fuel and power reduction, dramatic waste increase and massive half life increase, i'd rather just deal with a little extra plutonium
somebody in power ha sdecided otherwise
i don't agree with them
plus, we can thorium as a fuwel source in addition to uranium, like the indians do
its not like this isn't being done outside the united states
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.
Scaremongering, ahoy! (Score:4, Funny)
A new one to add to the nuclear power fearmongering checklist: concerns about a span of future time over twice that of the beginning of recorded human history, coupled (as not to be too revolutionary: if 50-year-old technology is too newfangled for these guys, just think what'll happen when they start bringing out completely original arguments) with ignorance of basic knowledge about radioactivity.
But what if in one hundred trillion thousand quadrillion years, insect aliens from the planet Poopazoid become sentient and discover hazardous left-over CT tracer fluid?!?! WILL THEIR SPACEFARING MINDS BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE DETECTION OF BASIC ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCES?
Old News - U.S. gov't is already researching (Score:4, Informative)
The 10,000 year number is ALREADY FUD... (Score:3, Insightful)
The "we'll have waste for 10k years!" is already nonsense.
As previous posters have pointed out, we ALREADY have the technology to turn 10,000-year waste into 100-year waste with some intelligent choices. I'm quite confident that given another 50 to 100 years of technological advancement, even these will be trivialities by then.
No, it's (again) simply the fear mongering by naive environmentalists who, unwilling to compromise on a least-worst choice instead of their impossibly utopian alternatives, have effectively prevented nuclear energy from developing in the US for 30+ years. That's the real Inconvenient Truth. Congratulations, I guess.
the real problem (Score:5, Funny)
A friend of mine said recently, "The real problem with Yucca Mountain is figuring out how to make a sign that will, hundreds of thousands of years in the future, no matter what language or symbols will be in use by the cultures that come after ours, still be able to clearly and unambiguously convey the concept: 'WARNING: In twenty years there's going to be nuclear waste here.'"
This is such a bogus problem (Score:4, Insightful)
First, Yucca Mountain is in an area where atmospheric nuclear blasts [doe.gov] used to be conducted without bothering anybody. You can still go there and see the craters. The site was chosen partly because it's very remote.
Second, any future clueless explorers digging in that area would have to be well-equipped. They're going to have to bash their way through a considerable amount of steel and concrete, so they'll need some mining technology. Then when they get to the concrete casks enclosing stainless steel tubes of glass enclosing radioactive materials, they have to get those open. Then some of them die within a few days, and it finally dawns on the rest of them that they've found something that was buried because it was dangerous, not valuable.
The problem is not going to spread. If you just had a nuclear fuel rod lying in the open, it wouldn't be dangerous fifty feet away. To get a large scale hazard, you have to grind it into powder and put it in food or water.
Re:This is such a bogus problem (Score:4, Insightful)
Good point. After 300 years or so, gamma emissions are way down, and spent fuel rods can be handled with fewer precautions.
So the real concern at that point is not future radiation-ignorant miners. It's someone who wants to extract the plutonium from spent fuel rods and make a bomb. Anyone doing that will know about radiation.
Re:Technology? (Score:4, Funny)
That's optimistic; can you evolve one of those in only 10,000 years?
Re:Charlie Rose conversation with Amory Lovins (Score:4, Insightful)
Rockets come up every time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly because launching stuff into space isn't anywhere near 100% reliable, and honestly enough, what the politicians are calling 'waste' that has to be safely stored for 10k years is actually still 90-95% of what a nuclear engineer would call 'potential fuel'.
Let Uranium double in price and reprocessing is suddenly profitable, and not that expensive to do on rods that have been cooling off for the last hundred years.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but you can't blame windscale entirely on the scientists. There was a lot of political pressure on them to cut corners and produce enough plutonium for a British A-bomb, and then enough tritium for a British H-bomb. Some of the shit they did to meet those deadlines was insane, even for people who had built an air cooled graphite reactor that vented into the atmosphere. Had it not been for 'Cockroft's folly' Lancashire would probably be a dead zone.
Its generally management and politicians who fuck thin