Nuclear power is expensive and dirty, not cheap and clean, the way it has always been sold to us. That's all.
Anyone who has worked in the Niger Delta knows the human cost of some of the stuff we use to support our First World lifestyle. Good thing that mess is in far-off West Africa, eh?
Shale oil and fracking
-
BenThere
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:54 am
- Location: Michigan/Quintana Roo
- Gender:
- Age: 72
Re: Shale oil and fracking
What's your point? What mess are you talking about?
Other things were sold to us, too, like the runaway reactor burning its way through the earth to China. Nuclear power is clean and cheap in its generation. What's expensive is the obstruction of it.
Other things were sold to us, too, like the runaway reactor burning its way through the earth to China. Nuclear power is clean and cheap in its generation. What's expensive is the obstruction of it.
Re: Shale oil and fracking
Ben, look at the life-cycle costs of a nuclear power plant. When you factor those costs in, particularly the costs of the yet-unsolved problem of storing a plant's waste, then you can see that these plants are damned expensive, and damned dangerous too: what amounts to a human cost.
It's one thing for a spoil heap to collapse on a school, but something else again for a nuclear power plant to fail catastrophically.
You and I both are familiar with aviation, where we don't assume that an accident won't ever happen. (We have even see a 747 lose all four engines, something that should have been as unlikely as a confirmed fresh Elvis sighting.) Even so, we still use aircraft. Would we operate one that could crash and leave a vast area uninhabitable, though, in the style of the Chernobyl disaster? Probably not, even if it could take us from New York to London for just $5 per person, and especially not if it turned out to cost an insane amount of money to scrap at the end of its service life.
There's this thing that humans do, rationalizing everything. We drive, even though that's even more dangerous than flying, and we fly, even though that's more dangerous than staying on the ground, what we have been designed for in the first place. There we have all the information we need about the risk/benefit balance, so that we can make an informed choice. If all we think we know about nuclear power is that it's cheap and safe then we do not have all the information we need about that risk/benefit balance; we need to understand that it's really not cheap, and it's not so very safe either.
While I was at Marlboro there was a bit of a local fuss about a nuclear power plant called "Vermont Yankee," located in nearby Vernon, Vermont. It turned out to be so that the thing was leaking small amounts of radioactive waste water repeatedly, and that the operator did not have the blueprints showing where all of the piping and wiring for the plant was run. (From memory, I think they found that the plant had encased some of the piping and wiring in concrete, making it nearly impossible to trouble-shoot. So much for white-clad technicians doing everything to the highest possible standards.)
Of course there were the usual demonstrations some of us love to make fun of, sandal-wearers waving home-made signs, countered by properly-made ones on the lawns of Vermont Yankee employees, signs kindly provided by their employer. In the end, the decision was made to shut the plant down, on economic grounds.
It's one thing for a spoil heap to collapse on a school, but something else again for a nuclear power plant to fail catastrophically.
You and I both are familiar with aviation, where we don't assume that an accident won't ever happen. (We have even see a 747 lose all four engines, something that should have been as unlikely as a confirmed fresh Elvis sighting.) Even so, we still use aircraft. Would we operate one that could crash and leave a vast area uninhabitable, though, in the style of the Chernobyl disaster? Probably not, even if it could take us from New York to London for just $5 per person, and especially not if it turned out to cost an insane amount of money to scrap at the end of its service life.
There's this thing that humans do, rationalizing everything. We drive, even though that's even more dangerous than flying, and we fly, even though that's more dangerous than staying on the ground, what we have been designed for in the first place. There we have all the information we need about the risk/benefit balance, so that we can make an informed choice. If all we think we know about nuclear power is that it's cheap and safe then we do not have all the information we need about that risk/benefit balance; we need to understand that it's really not cheap, and it's not so very safe either.
While I was at Marlboro there was a bit of a local fuss about a nuclear power plant called "Vermont Yankee," located in nearby Vernon, Vermont. It turned out to be so that the thing was leaking small amounts of radioactive waste water repeatedly, and that the operator did not have the blueprints showing where all of the piping and wiring for the plant was run. (From memory, I think they found that the plant had encased some of the piping and wiring in concrete, making it nearly impossible to trouble-shoot. So much for white-clad technicians doing everything to the highest possible standards.)
Of course there were the usual demonstrations some of us love to make fun of, sandal-wearers waving home-made signs, countered by properly-made ones on the lawns of Vermont Yankee employees, signs kindly provided by their employer. In the end, the decision was made to shut the plant down, on economic grounds.
-
BenThere
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:54 am
- Location: Michigan/Quintana Roo
- Gender:
- Age: 72
Re: Shale oil and fracking
So who was hurt by the small amounts of radioactive waste-water? How many roentgens did the locals absorb?
Actually, a grand solution for mass storage of spent fuel and other nuclear energy waste, in the form of Yucca Mountain in Nevada was developed, and exists to this day, but was blocked from operating by Harry Reid. It was blocked for political, not technical reasons. The storage site could be holding 500 years of nuclear detritus safely, shielded by thousand foot thick walls of granite - but no, instead we store it in a hodgepodge of sites operating under multiple jurisdictions with varying degrees of safety because there's nowhere else for the stuff to go, and that's the way Democrats want it to stay.
Vermont Yankee probably has a nice pool of waste festering somewhere in the Green Mountains.
Actually, a grand solution for mass storage of spent fuel and other nuclear energy waste, in the form of Yucca Mountain in Nevada was developed, and exists to this day, but was blocked from operating by Harry Reid. It was blocked for political, not technical reasons. The storage site could be holding 500 years of nuclear detritus safely, shielded by thousand foot thick walls of granite - but no, instead we store it in a hodgepodge of sites operating under multiple jurisdictions with varying degrees of safety because there's nowhere else for the stuff to go, and that's the way Democrats want it to stay.
Vermont Yankee probably has a nice pool of waste festering somewhere in the Green Mountains.
Re: Shale oil and fracking
Ben, it was another case of "What if?" This plant had a lot of local support as a source of jobs, but when it was found to have been poorly built and to be poorly maintained that made New England safety more important than local area jobs. (The plant is on the border between Vermont and New Hampshire and not very far upstream from central Massachusetts and Connecticut.)
As you know, these plants are usually sited by a body of water, meaning that after any accident contamination is almost certain to be wide-spread. The other obvious problem, also present at Vermont Yankee, and present as a risk at Yucca Mountain, is radioactive contamination of groundwater.
Given that, as you state, nuclear waste is stored "in a hodgepodge of sites operating under multiple jurisdictions with varying degrees of safety because there's nowhere else for the stuff to go ... " how can you be so sure that nuclear power is as safe as you claim that it is? Blame the Democrats if you want to, but that is the state of affairs at present, with no improvement in sight.
Please do not tell me that you are going to unleash Trump, with his gnat-like attention span, on a problem that is going to persist for hundreds of centuries. He can barely manage a hundred days, let alone hundreds of years. This is the man who does not believe in Climate Change, after all, so why should he care about nuclear power, with all the difficult problems that brings, problems that only hard science, not alternative facts, can solve?
As you know, these plants are usually sited by a body of water, meaning that after any accident contamination is almost certain to be wide-spread. The other obvious problem, also present at Vermont Yankee, and present as a risk at Yucca Mountain, is radioactive contamination of groundwater.
Given that, as you state, nuclear waste is stored "in a hodgepodge of sites operating under multiple jurisdictions with varying degrees of safety because there's nowhere else for the stuff to go ... " how can you be so sure that nuclear power is as safe as you claim that it is? Blame the Democrats if you want to, but that is the state of affairs at present, with no improvement in sight.
Please do not tell me that you are going to unleash Trump, with his gnat-like attention span, on a problem that is going to persist for hundreds of centuries. He can barely manage a hundred days, let alone hundreds of years. This is the man who does not believe in Climate Change, after all, so why should he care about nuclear power, with all the difficult problems that brings, problems that only hard science, not alternative facts, can solve?
-
BenThere
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:54 am
- Location: Michigan/Quintana Roo
- Gender:
- Age: 72
Re: Shale oil and fracking
This is the man who does not believe in Climate Change
Well, neither do I. My religion is agnostic.
And if our current nuclear waste storage methods haven't resulted in trouble for decades, think how much safer we could make it if Democrats would Yucca Mountain to operate. Are you sure there's ground water at elevation in Nevada? Check out the specs on Yucca Mountain. For better results, seek out a source other than the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Well, neither do I. My religion is agnostic.
And if our current nuclear waste storage methods haven't resulted in trouble for decades, think how much safer we could make it if Democrats would Yucca Mountain to operate. Are you sure there's ground water at elevation in Nevada? Check out the specs on Yucca Mountain. For better results, seek out a source other than the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Re: Shale oil and fracking
No trouble for decades with nuclear waste storage, you say?
Check this problem out: http://www.king5.com/news/local/investi ... /140990679
The problem with any storage facility is not necessarily ground water at the level radioactive waste is stored, but gravity ("Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!") causing leaking radioactive waste eventually to seep down to the level of the ground water, however deep underground that water may be found.
That's one foreseen problem at Yucca Mountain: a combination of porous substrate and ground water some 500 feet down. Remember that this waste is going to be dangerous for hundreds of years, enough time for it to work its way down to the level of ground water even it that ground water is at a very deep level.
It's silly to look at a desert and say, "Look! No water!"
Check this problem out: http://www.king5.com/news/local/investi ... /140990679
The problem with any storage facility is not necessarily ground water at the level radioactive waste is stored, but gravity ("Yeah, Mr. White! Yeah, science!") causing leaking radioactive waste eventually to seep down to the level of the ground water, however deep underground that water may be found.
That's one foreseen problem at Yucca Mountain: a combination of porous substrate and ground water some 500 feet down. Remember that this waste is going to be dangerous for hundreds of years, enough time for it to work its way down to the level of ground water even it that ground water is at a very deep level.
It's silly to look at a desert and say, "Look! No water!"
Re: Shale oil and fracking
Well Chuks, now you've ventured into my own town. On this topic, I dare say I'm more educated than you.
King5 in Seattle has been on the anti-Hanford bandwagon for decades. Steady stream of critique -- nothing that they do here could ever satisfy them, even if the risks got down to 0.000001%.
So you are quoting a story that has nothing...nada...to do with waste from nuclear power plants. The Hanford tanks contain millions of gallons of waste produced during Hanford's 4 decades of bomb-grade nuclear material. We are now engaged in a massive project to empty those tanks, devising the technology as we go. Eventually those wastes will also become vitrified -- the plant to do this is under construction, and due to political/government interference has raised its cost from $5 billion to now $16 billion (with a "B") since construction began.
The technology is there. The will on the part of government is not.
Back to topic at hand: the spent nuclear fuels in this country are all in safe temporary storage, awaiting the government deciding on where they will allow a final storage repository. Not a single person has been harmed by them. And in fact not a single person has been harmed by radioactivity from those Hanford tanks you are so concerned about.
And finally, the French, Godblessem, have been solidifying and storing their spent nuclear fuel for decades, and are storing theirs just over the border from where you sit now. Safely. With no Frenchmen killed.
On this topic, Chuks, you are completely ignorant.
King5 in Seattle has been on the anti-Hanford bandwagon for decades. Steady stream of critique -- nothing that they do here could ever satisfy them, even if the risks got down to 0.000001%.
So you are quoting a story that has nothing...nada...to do with waste from nuclear power plants. The Hanford tanks contain millions of gallons of waste produced during Hanford's 4 decades of bomb-grade nuclear material. We are now engaged in a massive project to empty those tanks, devising the technology as we go. Eventually those wastes will also become vitrified -- the plant to do this is under construction, and due to political/government interference has raised its cost from $5 billion to now $16 billion (with a "B") since construction began.
The technology is there. The will on the part of government is not.
Back to topic at hand: the spent nuclear fuels in this country are all in safe temporary storage, awaiting the government deciding on where they will allow a final storage repository. Not a single person has been harmed by them. And in fact not a single person has been harmed by radioactivity from those Hanford tanks you are so concerned about.
And finally, the French, Godblessem, have been solidifying and storing their spent nuclear fuel for decades, and are storing theirs just over the border from where you sit now. Safely. With no Frenchmen killed.
On this topic, Chuks, you are completely ignorant.
Re: Shale oil and fracking
Damn, but you are an obstinate one, obgraham!
Ben posited that "current nuclear waste storage methods haven't resulted in trouble for decades."
I replied with information about trouble that has resulted from, yes, "current nuclear waste storage methods."
Nuclear waste is nuclear waste. Some of the oldest nuclear waste we have is found there at Hanford, since it comes from our weapons programs which came well before our nuclear power programs.
Old as that waste is, it's still quite dangerous, and perhaps more dangerous because it's in old storage tanks. There it's easy to see that the danger of the waste has outlasted the safe life of the storage tanks, when that is exactly the problem: how to ensure very long-lasting, close to 100% safe storage methods of very, very long-lasting waste. The original idea in the case I cited was that the waste should be safely contained within the inner wall of those double-wall tanks, with the outer wall there only as a safety measure. Instead we now have waste held behind that single, outer wall; that is a clear design failure with a clear potential for disaster. (If I find after landing that six out of twelve bolts have sheared on the wing-to-fuselage attachment of my aircraft, should I think, "Well, that's alright then!" or should I be a bit worried that there's something seriously wrong there?)
When it comes to ignorance, obgraham, check this out: Was I "quoting a story that has nothing...nada...to do with waste from nuclear power plants"? Of course I was. I was quoting a story that had to do with what Ben mentioned, "nuclear waste storage." I think you need to read a bit more closely before you start spouting off about my ignorance; there you were showing yours by distinguishing between two slightly different sorts of nuclear waste, either from weapons programs or from nuclear power plants, when Ben had made no such distinction, when there is no real distinction to be made.
Come to that, I bet that I can come up with examples of waste from nuclear power plants causing trouble in the USA; it was just not necessary to look any further than Hanford for one example of trouble with nuclear waste storage in general, all that I needed to refute what Ben had posted.
If it's long-term, safe storage of nuclear waste that we are to worry about, obgraham (or not if one has your sunny outlook on life, perhaps eating your cornflakes sprinkled with little glowing specks of low-level nuclear waste) then some of the longest-term storage to date is that of the stuff found in your own back yard. You probably need to tell yourself that finding over 8 inches of liquid nuclear waste behind a single tank wall is nothing to worry about, especially not to worry about how obviously slack those running the storage facility have been. That's wilful ignorance on your part, not mine. The stuff got past the inner wall, so what is to say it can't get past the outer wall too?
Have you ever gone parachuting, obgraham? They tell you then that your static-line main chute always works, but if it doesn't, then you have a reserve chute. That always works. If it doesn't work ... no, they don't tell you about that eventuality, so what's to worry about? Now, that is ignorance!
Ben posited that "current nuclear waste storage methods haven't resulted in trouble for decades."
I replied with information about trouble that has resulted from, yes, "current nuclear waste storage methods."
Nuclear waste is nuclear waste. Some of the oldest nuclear waste we have is found there at Hanford, since it comes from our weapons programs which came well before our nuclear power programs.
Old as that waste is, it's still quite dangerous, and perhaps more dangerous because it's in old storage tanks. There it's easy to see that the danger of the waste has outlasted the safe life of the storage tanks, when that is exactly the problem: how to ensure very long-lasting, close to 100% safe storage methods of very, very long-lasting waste. The original idea in the case I cited was that the waste should be safely contained within the inner wall of those double-wall tanks, with the outer wall there only as a safety measure. Instead we now have waste held behind that single, outer wall; that is a clear design failure with a clear potential for disaster. (If I find after landing that six out of twelve bolts have sheared on the wing-to-fuselage attachment of my aircraft, should I think, "Well, that's alright then!" or should I be a bit worried that there's something seriously wrong there?)
When it comes to ignorance, obgraham, check this out: Was I "quoting a story that has nothing...nada...to do with waste from nuclear power plants"? Of course I was. I was quoting a story that had to do with what Ben mentioned, "nuclear waste storage." I think you need to read a bit more closely before you start spouting off about my ignorance; there you were showing yours by distinguishing between two slightly different sorts of nuclear waste, either from weapons programs or from nuclear power plants, when Ben had made no such distinction, when there is no real distinction to be made.
Come to that, I bet that I can come up with examples of waste from nuclear power plants causing trouble in the USA; it was just not necessary to look any further than Hanford for one example of trouble with nuclear waste storage in general, all that I needed to refute what Ben had posted.
If it's long-term, safe storage of nuclear waste that we are to worry about, obgraham (or not if one has your sunny outlook on life, perhaps eating your cornflakes sprinkled with little glowing specks of low-level nuclear waste) then some of the longest-term storage to date is that of the stuff found in your own back yard. You probably need to tell yourself that finding over 8 inches of liquid nuclear waste behind a single tank wall is nothing to worry about, especially not to worry about how obviously slack those running the storage facility have been. That's wilful ignorance on your part, not mine. The stuff got past the inner wall, so what is to say it can't get past the outer wall too?
Have you ever gone parachuting, obgraham? They tell you then that your static-line main chute always works, but if it doesn't, then you have a reserve chute. That always works. If it doesn't work ... no, they don't tell you about that eventuality, so what's to worry about? Now, that is ignorance!
-
Magnus
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3484
- Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2015 12:42 pm
- Location: Edinburgh
- Gender:
- Age: 72
Re: Shale oil and fracking
There's a fundamental lack of understanding of physics in the rose garden here. If material is radioactive for hundreds/thousands of years, then it isn't emitting much radiation. If it did, it would be decaying to non-radioactive isotopes or other elements. If it is toxic (as is plutonium, regardless of the isotope), that's a different matter. Perhaps the girl's guide encyclopaedia in the rose garden can enlighten us as to what will remain dangerously radioactive for centuries or millennia?
Granite is radioactive, as is the radon gas it emits. Very low-level and long term. We still use granite as a building material.
Granite is radioactive, as is the radon gas it emits. Very low-level and long term. We still use granite as a building material.
Re: Shale oil and fracking
Yes, we do use granite as a building material, and some houses are built on granite. (If you are lucky you may even qualify for money from the US government to install a ventilation system in your house because of the known risk of lung cancer from radon.)
Magnus, spare a moment to tell us what the effect can be of a whole lot of something that only emits a small amount of something harmful per unit. That must be sort of like chewing and swallowing one apple seed compared to chewing and swallowing all the seeds from just two dozen apples, I guess. (Warning: Do not try this at home!)
Are you suggesting that we should learn to stop worrying and learn to love radioactive waste, Magnus, because it's essentially benign? Why all the fuss then? Non-scientist that I am, I thought it's because we have a hell of a lot of radioactive waste that's going to stay "hot," some even literally so, for a long time, but you tell me.
Another thing, Magnus: Why do we call these essentially benign events such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Windscale (one of yours, I believe, given that Jockistan is still part of Great Britain), and Kyshtym "disasters"? Where's the excitement in merely finding leaking drums of radioactive waste? Wouldn't it be better if we called all of these events, perhaps, "happy, unplanned radiation parties," something like that, and thus learned to accept this sort of thing as part of life's rich pageant?
Magnus, spare a moment to tell us what the effect can be of a whole lot of something that only emits a small amount of something harmful per unit. That must be sort of like chewing and swallowing one apple seed compared to chewing and swallowing all the seeds from just two dozen apples, I guess. (Warning: Do not try this at home!)
Are you suggesting that we should learn to stop worrying and learn to love radioactive waste, Magnus, because it's essentially benign? Why all the fuss then? Non-scientist that I am, I thought it's because we have a hell of a lot of radioactive waste that's going to stay "hot," some even literally so, for a long time, but you tell me.
Another thing, Magnus: Why do we call these essentially benign events such as Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima, Windscale (one of yours, I believe, given that Jockistan is still part of Great Britain), and Kyshtym "disasters"? Where's the excitement in merely finding leaking drums of radioactive waste? Wouldn't it be better if we called all of these events, perhaps, "happy, unplanned radiation parties," something like that, and thus learned to accept this sort of thing as part of life's rich pageant?
Re: Shale oil and fracking
Well I'll give you credit, Chuks, for being willing to pontificate to someone who's lived and dealt with these issues for 40 years.
If you are not aware of the differences between the handling and storage of high and low level waste in our weapons programs starting in 1943, versus the nuclear power industry's mandated storage of today, I'm afraid I can't help you.
Perhaps I should try to educate you on how unsafe it is to taxy around in airplanes these days -- Tenerife and all. But no, I think I'll continue to travel safely (but not 100% safely) because the professionals in the field, even including you, do your jobs very well despite all the interferences.
If you are not aware of the differences between the handling and storage of high and low level waste in our weapons programs starting in 1943, versus the nuclear power industry's mandated storage of today, I'm afraid I can't help you.
Perhaps I should try to educate you on how unsafe it is to taxy around in airplanes these days -- Tenerife and all. But no, I think I'll continue to travel safely (but not 100% safely) because the professionals in the field, even including you, do your jobs very well despite all the interferences.
-
BenThere
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:54 am
- Location: Michigan/Quintana Roo
- Gender:
- Age: 72
Re: Shale oil and fracking
http://www.world-nuclear.org/informatio ... ement.aspx
I found the above article fleshed out my knowledge of the challenges and solutions for the disposition of nuclear power waste. I thought it was a sane and scientific assessment. I'll be interested in reading the basis for your refuting it.
I found the above article fleshed out my knowledge of the challenges and solutions for the disposition of nuclear power waste. I thought it was a sane and scientific assessment. I'll be interested in reading the basis for your refuting it.
Re: Shale oil and fracking
Well, obgraham, if you are willing to put full faith in commercial nuclear operators in the States not cutting any corners, doing everything to the very highest possible standards with little thought given to profit or loss when it comes to such things as storing nuclear waste, then, as Maher Baba used to say, "Don't worry; be happy." When we at Marlboro read about how sloppy the folks at Vermont Yankee had been in operating and maintaining their plant, our toes were seen to be curling in our open-toe sandals, but that might have just been us: Woodstock rejects, basically. You must know better.
Are you as chipper about the waste at Hanford as you are about the rest of it? How did you feel when you read about that leaky tank, the one with a bit over 8 inches of liquid waste, high-level waste presumably, held behind just one wall instead of two?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the problem that the tanks, all of them, were not designed for this long-term storage, that that is why they are leaking? Okay, only a million gallons of waste has leaked so far, so that I suppose it could be worse ... somehow.
Have a read of this. It might cheer you up to see that the Germans are bunglers when it comes to the safe storage of nuclear waste: http://www.nuclear-heritage.net/images/ ... _small.pdf This pdf is about as anti-nuke as it gets, of course. I am sure that you can dig around and find someone else who will tell you that you can sprinkle the waste on your muesli.
Are you as chipper about the waste at Hanford as you are about the rest of it? How did you feel when you read about that leaky tank, the one with a bit over 8 inches of liquid waste, high-level waste presumably, held behind just one wall instead of two?
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the problem that the tanks, all of them, were not designed for this long-term storage, that that is why they are leaking? Okay, only a million gallons of waste has leaked so far, so that I suppose it could be worse ... somehow.
Have a read of this. It might cheer you up to see that the Germans are bunglers when it comes to the safe storage of nuclear waste: http://www.nuclear-heritage.net/images/ ... _small.pdf This pdf is about as anti-nuke as it gets, of course. I am sure that you can dig around and find someone else who will tell you that you can sprinkle the waste on your muesli.
Re: Shale oil and fracking
Chuks, the stuff is being removed from the single wall tanks. However they have no choice except to move it to the double wall tanks because the plans to permanently take care of it have been delayed over and over again for decades.
However it presents a tech problem: The stuff in the tanks has a liquid component, most all of which has been removed. But there is still a cake of about 8 inches of solid gunk at the bottom, for which no records exist, so they don't actually know what is in it, and have to invent ways of removing it.
None of us here think the gov did well on these matters -- the push to develop the bombs and their materials, along with fear of the USSR, allowed some really terrible practices, which we now have to go back and account for. Look up the "Hanford Green Run" if you want more ammunition.
My point here is that scientists and engineers can solve these problems. But at places like Hanford they have not been allowed to. Policies made by Fed and State governments, often in conflict with each other and encourage by the Anti-Nuke freakout types are continually obstructive. The actual schedule to clean up everything at Hanford now calls for completion in 2086!
However it presents a tech problem: The stuff in the tanks has a liquid component, most all of which has been removed. But there is still a cake of about 8 inches of solid gunk at the bottom, for which no records exist, so they don't actually know what is in it, and have to invent ways of removing it.
None of us here think the gov did well on these matters -- the push to develop the bombs and their materials, along with fear of the USSR, allowed some really terrible practices, which we now have to go back and account for. Look up the "Hanford Green Run" if you want more ammunition.
My point here is that scientists and engineers can solve these problems. But at places like Hanford they have not been allowed to. Policies made by Fed and State governments, often in conflict with each other and encourage by the Anti-Nuke freakout types are continually obstructive. The actual schedule to clean up everything at Hanford now calls for completion in 2086!
Re: Shale oil and fracking
The thing is that you can blame whomever you like for these problems with the safe disposal of nuclear waste, but my point is that these problems certainly exist.
That piece Ben came up with reads well. The fact is, though, that the USA does not have any site that is in operation for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. This is simply a very dangerous state of affairs, and never mind who is to blame for it.
From what I just read about Hanford much of the problem there is that tanks designed for relatively short-term storage are being used for long-term storage instead. This is why that double-wall tank is leaking, isn't it? It simply was not designed to last as long as it has been in use.
We are looking at some sort of modern task like building multiples of the Great Pyramid of Giza, structures that shall last for millennia. As little as we know of that Pyramid, that's about how much our descendants, thousands of years from now, may know of some nuclear waste depository, once we get around to building it. I suppose it might be something we can do, but it's a daunting task.
That piece Ben came up with reads well. The fact is, though, that the USA does not have any site that is in operation for the long-term storage of nuclear waste. This is simply a very dangerous state of affairs, and never mind who is to blame for it.
From what I just read about Hanford much of the problem there is that tanks designed for relatively short-term storage are being used for long-term storage instead. This is why that double-wall tank is leaking, isn't it? It simply was not designed to last as long as it has been in use.
We are looking at some sort of modern task like building multiples of the Great Pyramid of Giza, structures that shall last for millennia. As little as we know of that Pyramid, that's about how much our descendants, thousands of years from now, may know of some nuclear waste depository, once we get around to building it. I suppose it might be something we can do, but it's a daunting task.
-
BenThere
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3804
- Joined: Sat Aug 29, 2015 12:54 am
- Location: Michigan/Quintana Roo
- Gender:
- Age: 72
Re: Shale oil and fracking
So wouldn't it be prudent to move the material from shorter term storage to the much longer term solution Yucca Mountain represents? It has been through a rigorous certification phase and implementation was only thwarted by Harry Reid's political obstruction. I imagine you can come up with documentation of serious concerns and objections, but I haven't come across credible denial of the efficacy of storing all the nation's nuclear contaminants there safely. And I want that just as much as you do, I think.
As obgraham and Magnus pointed out, the toxicity of the material for the most part depletes much more rapidly than thousands of years, reverting to relatively benign isotopes with the characteristics of the ores in the ground now from which it was mined in the first place. I'd rather have the stuff in a large depository in an isolated location, designed and determined to be as impervious as possible to risk, than in the various pools surrounding the many reactors throughout the nation, many located close to population centers. Also, the desiccation of the waste mitigates the ground water threat you brought up, even though I doubt anyone relies on the ground water underneath Yucca Mountain for anything. Correct me if I'm wrong.
As obgraham and Magnus pointed out, the toxicity of the material for the most part depletes much more rapidly than thousands of years, reverting to relatively benign isotopes with the characteristics of the ores in the ground now from which it was mined in the first place. I'd rather have the stuff in a large depository in an isolated location, designed and determined to be as impervious as possible to risk, than in the various pools surrounding the many reactors throughout the nation, many located close to population centers. Also, the desiccation of the waste mitigates the ground water threat you brought up, even though I doubt anyone relies on the ground water underneath Yucca Mountain for anything. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Re: Shale oil and fracking
tanks designed for relatively short-term storage are being used for long-term storage instead. This is why that double-wall tank is leaking, isn't it? It simply was not designed to last as long as it has been in use.
Of course. That's the point. The opponents of all things nuclear (think "Hanford Education Action League", which is not, of course based at Hanford) have impeded the process of treating this material. They actually prefer to see the leaking continue, which furthers their agenda, similar to what you are doing here.
Re: Shale oil and fracking
"They actually prefer to see the leaking continue, which furthers their agenda, similar to what you are doing here."
I think you have the cart before the horse there, obgraham. Show me a coherent plan that had been in place at Hanford for dealing with this waste, one that had been sabotaged by political scheming. There was a period of decades when there were no political obstacles whatsoever to developing and implementing plans for long-term storage of nuclear waste. The opposition has come because of perceived shortcomings in the way that nuclear waste has been handled, particularly at Hanford. That waste was put into what turns out to be short-term storage without a coherent plan for long-term storage, wasn't it? You can't blame that on the sandal-wearers, because they were not involved in the way this situation arose. Are you being serious when you blame the anti-nuke faction for the mess at Hanford?
As to this: "[T]he toxicity of the material for the most part depletes much more rapidly than thousands of years," just let me note that the Ukrainian authorities have stated that an area 30 kilometers in radius around Chernobyl will not be safe for human habitation for the next twenty thousand years. I have no idea what the science behind that one is, but it shows a sort of toxicity that depletes much less rapidly than thousands of years. Did they get their numbers badly wrong there?
The local Lutheran church hosts children from the area around Chernobyl each summer. I dropped by once to a summer gathering, and I have to say that those were puny-looking little kids! How much of that was down to radioactivity and how much was down to other factors ... no idea, but the disaster at the plant must have had a lot to do with that.
If these risks were so benign, why should we even bother with containment domes over nuclear power plants? So the thing goes "Pfft," and then the neighborhood glows at night for a little while. Should that be a big deal to a reasonable person?
Maybe we can solve the waste problem by getting pro-nuke people each to adopt a barrel of low-level waste. Put it in the basement or out in the garage and look after it carefully until, after just a little while, it has decayed to the point where it's perfectly safe. That's probably no more risky than living in a house made of granite, or smoking two packs of fags a day. (I knew a lady who smoked two packs a day and was perfectly fine with that ... until she had a stroke. But never mind that now!)
If the hippies are in the way of dealing with our nuclear waste, let's see the pro-nuke people step up and take a shot at helping this deserving industry out.
I think you have the cart before the horse there, obgraham. Show me a coherent plan that had been in place at Hanford for dealing with this waste, one that had been sabotaged by political scheming. There was a period of decades when there were no political obstacles whatsoever to developing and implementing plans for long-term storage of nuclear waste. The opposition has come because of perceived shortcomings in the way that nuclear waste has been handled, particularly at Hanford. That waste was put into what turns out to be short-term storage without a coherent plan for long-term storage, wasn't it? You can't blame that on the sandal-wearers, because they were not involved in the way this situation arose. Are you being serious when you blame the anti-nuke faction for the mess at Hanford?
As to this: "[T]he toxicity of the material for the most part depletes much more rapidly than thousands of years," just let me note that the Ukrainian authorities have stated that an area 30 kilometers in radius around Chernobyl will not be safe for human habitation for the next twenty thousand years. I have no idea what the science behind that one is, but it shows a sort of toxicity that depletes much less rapidly than thousands of years. Did they get their numbers badly wrong there?
The local Lutheran church hosts children from the area around Chernobyl each summer. I dropped by once to a summer gathering, and I have to say that those were puny-looking little kids! How much of that was down to radioactivity and how much was down to other factors ... no idea, but the disaster at the plant must have had a lot to do with that.
If these risks were so benign, why should we even bother with containment domes over nuclear power plants? So the thing goes "Pfft," and then the neighborhood glows at night for a little while. Should that be a big deal to a reasonable person?
Maybe we can solve the waste problem by getting pro-nuke people each to adopt a barrel of low-level waste. Put it in the basement or out in the garage and look after it carefully until, after just a little while, it has decayed to the point where it's perfectly safe. That's probably no more risky than living in a house made of granite, or smoking two packs of fags a day. (I knew a lady who smoked two packs a day and was perfectly fine with that ... until she had a stroke. But never mind that now!)
If the hippies are in the way of dealing with our nuclear waste, let's see the pro-nuke people step up and take a shot at helping this deserving industry out.
Re: Shale oil and fracking
Actually, Chuks, I'd be quite happy to have a barrel of low level nuclear waste in my basement.
Do you actually know what "low level nuclear waste" is? The bulk of it is made up of things like gloves and jumpsuits worn by workers in industrial plants, along with medical and scientific byproducts. For instance, every time I ordered a blood pregnancy test ("Radioimmunassay for human chorionic gonadotrophin" is how it is ordered), a small amount of radioactive material is generated as the material is tagged with a radioactive marker and read in a counter. All of this waste material is required to be processed under strict protocols, and by volume it far outstrips that produced by the nuclear industry.
My own city's drinking water comes via the inlet pipe on the Columbia River, three miles downstream from all that nasty Hanford stuff you're telling me is so dangerous. None of us are glowing brightly enough to read by, yet.
But carry on with your bogeyman obsession. While you pilots continue to spray us with toxic chemtrails which I see every day as I look up.
Do you actually know what "low level nuclear waste" is? The bulk of it is made up of things like gloves and jumpsuits worn by workers in industrial plants, along with medical and scientific byproducts. For instance, every time I ordered a blood pregnancy test ("Radioimmunassay for human chorionic gonadotrophin" is how it is ordered), a small amount of radioactive material is generated as the material is tagged with a radioactive marker and read in a counter. All of this waste material is required to be processed under strict protocols, and by volume it far outstrips that produced by the nuclear industry.
My own city's drinking water comes via the inlet pipe on the Columbia River, three miles downstream from all that nasty Hanford stuff you're telling me is so dangerous. None of us are glowing brightly enough to read by, yet.
But carry on with your bogeyman obsession. While you pilots continue to spray us with toxic chemtrails which I see every day as I look up.