Trying to solve the long-term nuclear waste storage problem

[starslayer]

That doesn’t even matter, that kind of argument is just nonsense based on the insane idea that someone the shit has to emit zero radioactivity to be safe. In fact all that radioactivity was already in the ground to start with, we’ve just concentrated it and made release its radiation faster, but after more like 50,000 years the waste will drop back down to emitting radiation at a rate similar to billions of tons of natural uranium/thorium/radon already in the ground trying to kill us. Heck if it was not for all that radioactivity constantly being emitted inside the earth from radioactive elements the planet would have already cooled off into a solid ball of iron and silicon, which would have no volcanic activity and support little to no life.

Actually, according to Canada's Nuclear FAQ, the waste at least from a CANDU reactor emits just one-quarter of background after only 500 years. This stuff simply doesn't need even multi-multi millennia stability of a site like Yucca Mountain if radioactivity is your main concern (we would still have to deal with the stuff's chemical toxicity though).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is there a chance that the material could be used for batteries, in small amounts? I remember the Voyager probes and a few others used plutonium for batteries (not for fission).

[Zixinus]

Is there a chance that the material could be used for batteries, in small amounts? I remember the Voyager probes and a few others used plutonium for batteries (not for fission).

Hell, no, at least not without reprocessing. You need a certain type of isotope to use RTGs (Radio(active?) Thermal Generators). RTGs work by the heat generated by radioactivity. Voyager and the like used Pu-238 (if I recall correctly, I do know that some other probes used different materials). These are good enough materials to be used in the power plants.

The only good stuff might by a certain isomer of Americanium, I think. And that might need specialised breeding to do to purify and get the amount and quality you need.

Besides, what sort of batteries are you talking about? For everyday use, using highly-radioactive material is highly inadvisable if not downright stupid for obvious reasons. Also, the Voyager batteries would only power a couple of household appliances anyway (again, IIRC).

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Hell, no, at least not without reprocessing. You need a certain type of isotope to use RTGs (Radio(active?) Thermal Generators). RTGs work by the heat generated by radioactivity. Voyager and the like used Pu-238 (if I recall correctly, I do know that some other probes used different materials). These are good enough materials to be used in the power plants.

The only good stuff might by a certain isomer of Americanium, I think. And that might need specialised breeding to do to purify and get the amount and quality you need.

Besides, what sort of batteries are you talking about? For everyday use, using highly-radioactive material is highly inadvisable if not downright stupid for obvious reasons. Also, the Voyager batteries would only power a couple of household appliances anyway (again, IIRC).

Well, yeah, I meant after some reprocessing. I was just thinking that the stuff could be used in some other meaningful way beyond just dumping into some corner of the planet. Just maybe, it will also cut down the volume required to store all the waste. I also hear some heart pacers use a battery based on a radioactive material.

[Darth Tanner]

I read on wiki that we could simply feed the majority of waste into the existing series of prototype fusion reactors and that would effectively annihilate it. Is there any truth in this?

Also why exactly are nations (us Brits will be building one soon) building underground storage facilities when we could use the same money to build a breeder reactor?

I had a good laugh on the BBC comment page for the recent announcement for the government asking for local councils to apply for the building of a waste depositary about idiots thinking that the regular bin men would therefore be dealing with it.

What I don't understand is why that's such a problem. Material alone doesn't make the bomb.

Even if it did why would people think that the material would end up be used for weapons? Are nuclear energy companies seen to be some cowboy operations that are allowed to just do as they wish? Pretty much all countries with nuclear plants either already have weapons or are signed members of the NPT. Iran doesnt exactly have the tech to build a breed reactor after all.

[Tanasinn]

At the very least, the anti-nuclear luddite lobby seems to be weakening. I'm really hoping that we can look back on this time one day and laugh with relief.

[Zixinus]

I read on wiki that we could simply feed the majority of waste into the existing series of prototype fusion reactors and that would effectively annihilate it. Is there any truth in this?

Yes, if you are willing to ruin the fusion reactor in the process. It also depends on what kind of reactor we are talking about.

With a source of neutrons, we can make already unstable radioactive materials even more unstable by either splitting them or giving them an additional neutron.

Most radioactive decays I looked at seem to do not much more then shed an extra neutron or two (by usually turning it into a proton, thus a different element). Radioactivity is the by-product of this process: the energy released by a neutron sheds energy to become a proton, that is from a higher energy state to a lower one. By giving an additional neutron, we are making the process more unstable and thus quicker. A couple of grams of pretty much anything that can be solid and radioactive at room temperature means allot of atoms and it takes allot of time for all of them to undergo this process.

Fusion reactors can be a great source of neutrons: Deuterium-Tritium fusion gives you more neutrons then a fission reactor of the same power.

Thing is, that all you really need is neutrons: fission reactors supply plenty of that already. That is what breeder reactors and facilities would do. Some transuranic elements are practically bursting with neutrons (granted, these elements have to be made too).

Also why exactly are nations (us Brits will be building one soon) building underground storage facilities when we could use the same money to build a breeder reactor?

Politics for one thing, and you will have to store radioactive materials either way. A breeder reactor is also potentially more dangerous then a garden variety reactor.

From a technical standpoint, a breeder will handle the most potentially useful and dangerous materials, but it will not handle ALL of it. Even with high-profile materials, a breeder facility has a finite capacity and you will want a safe place to store the material that is waiting to get in line.

I am pretty sure there are more reasons, and if anybody knows them, I am curious as well.

Even if it did why would people think that the material would end up be used for weapons? Are nuclear energy companies seen to be some cowboy operations that are allowed to just do as they wish? Pretty much all countries with nuclear plants either already have weapons or are signed members of the NPT. Iran doesnt exactly have the tech to build a breed reactor after all.

Think a bit. This is a nuclear bomb we are talking about.

That is a pretty valid reasoning but remember that this is the general public we are talking about nukes with: rationality is thrown straight out of the window, pulled up and thrown out again with a 10-ton weight just to get the point across. Then it is stomped upon by angry, fat men with shovels, dug a hole for and buried in cement just so that to ensure that it will not return.