Why don't we dump nuclear waste into volcanos?

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by Mr.Phil

You'd be better off ejecting it into space, sending it beyond the solar system (although that wouldn't be an economically viable option).

There are few methods of disposal less safe than sticking it on a rocket and sending it to space.

nemisis9 wrote:

However, people 's fear at having one of these dumps in close proximity is understandable. After all, there are accidents and such. It's not a perfect process, and people's fears about those imperfections are understandable. Most people are not just going to have blind faith as you advocate. Additionally, the group of people closest to the dump have an understandable gripe as to why they were chosen to be the toxic nuclear waste dump people. Do they get to vote on it. Why should they bear all the risk?

You cant tell someone they are being irrational, when you are asking them to take your risk.

Risk in this case is what is perceived rather than what is real. Should we bend to NIMBYism, or persue what the nation needs to develop in an environmentally friendly manner?

Spent nuclear fuel is not as dangerous as the anti-nuke people would have you believe. Its just that you need very stable geological land to put it in.

The safe disposal of this stuff has long been worked out, and here in the UK, we have the areas that could take it (not desert of course). To satisfy the local population of those areas, they will receive local benefits for their community. Basically, they are seeing some waste that poses such a miniscule risk to them as to be laughable, and in return they get community investment.

Other wastes, such as asbestos, get put to less controlled practises (haz waste landfills), could pose a comparable risk to the local community, but are far less likely to see such benefits.

Similarly, people living next to sites that give off noise or odour are unlikely to receive such beneifts.

The fear attached to nuclear issues has created some bizarre political situations, and people saying "never here!". The point is that nuclear waste will decay to the levels it was extracted at in about 500 years. It is entirely realistic that the containment can be engineered to contain the waste for that time and beyond. Containers are designed to withstand accidents, and low level radiation exposure (that is actually unlikely) has been found to be far less harmful than previously thought.

Even near the Sellerfield site, levels of radiation are basically that of background levels one would find anywhere, and that for a site that has seen much controversy.

By 10000years, the levels will be a lot lower, and pose even less risk.

The idea that we should dispose of it all in a desert in Australia is an interesting one. There are no doubt countries that might want to take them up as they might not have the appropriate geology, but one might argue that if you don't have the geology to dispose of it yourself, you shouldn't playing with such toys. But it could be a good earner for Australia with little impact on its population.

[Skeptic]

Thanks to Wobs.

Nice to see someone with a bit of good sense contributing.

[nemesis9]

There are several issues that make nuclear power nothing more than a short term gap solution:

- The use of nuclear power causes...approximately one-third as much CO2 -emission as gas-fired electricity production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve this reduction are, however, so limited that if the entire present world electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would be exhausted within three years. Use of the remaining poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more CO2 emission than burning fossil fuels directly.

- enrichment uses Uranium Hexafluoride which has a global warming potential 10,000 times that of CO2

- the waste disposal problem

- it wont solve the transportation problem

We have 1300 - 1400 W/m2 coming from the sun, I would rather invest in researching how to harness that solar energy than some short term panacea, (not).

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by Wobs

Spent nuclear fuel is not as dangerous as the anti-nuke people would have you believe. Its just that you need very stable geological land to put it in.

The safe disposal of this stuff has long been worked out, and here in the UK, we have the areas that could take it (not desert of course). To satisfy the local population of those areas, they will receive local benefits for their community. Basically, they are seeing some waste that poses such a miniscule risk to them as to be laughable, and in return they get community investment.

I don't believe it has been fully worked out, have you calculated this over the next century, the next two centuries, the next thousand years? Have you calculated it supposing that the entire world population uses nuclear?
Have you taken into account the exponential growth of the population and the economy?

If you think really long term about this, no such solution has been worked out. Forget nuclear, solar is the way to go.

[Skeptic]

To nemesis

Solar will definitely make a contribution to global energy needs, as will wind power, as will tidal, and wave power and a raft of other energy sources.

What is often not understood, though, is just how much power will be needed over the next 100 years. In spite of energy conservation measures, the need for electricity is set, not just to increase, but to multiply.

In addition to a massive increase in the number of third world people needing power, we need to look at fuels. Electricity will be needed in massive amounts to make liquid fuels for transportation. Hydrogen gas is made by electrolysis, and will be a basic raw material in many of the liquid fuel manufacturing processes.

There will also be many electric cars, trains, buses etc, all needing large amounts of electricity to run them.

The world is going to need to use absolutely every practical means of generating electricity. Alternatives won't be enough. Along with all other means, nuclear will need to be increased dramatically also.

Probably, in another 50 years or so, nuclear fusion will become practical. At that stage, nuclear fission will no longer be required. Until then, nuclear fission power will be essential, at levels way above what we use today.

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

To nemesis

Solar will definitely make a contribution to global energy needs, as will wind power, as will tidal, and wave power and a raft of other energy sources.

What is often not understood, though, is just how much power will be needed over the next 100 years. In spite of energy conservation measures, the need for electricity is set, not just to increase, but to multiply.

In addition to a massive increase in the number of third world people needing power, we need to look at fuels. Electricity will be needed in massive amounts to make liquid fuels for transportation. Hydrogen gas is made by electrolysis, and will be a basic raw material in many of the liquid fuel manufacturing processes.

There will also be many electric cars, trains, buses etc, all needing large amounts of electricity to run them.

The world is going to need to use absolutely every practical means of generating electricity. Alternatives won't be enough. Along with all other means, nuclear will need to be increased dramatically also.

Probably, in another 50 years or so, nuclear fusion will become practical. At that stage, nuclear fission will no longer be required. Until then, nuclear fission power will be essential, at levels way above what we use today.

I agree, I am not anti-nuclear, I just don't want to see us to put all our eggs into one basket and not pursue research into solar power, etc. I also agree with your point that energy needs are growing exponentially. I haven't kept up with fusion research, but I understand some strides have been made in "cold fusion", but I haven't kept up with it.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by nemesis9

There are several issues that make nuclear power nothing more than a short term gap solution:

- The use of nuclear power causes...approximately one-third as much CO2 -emission as gas-fired electricity production. The rich uranium ores required to achieve this reduction are, however, so limited that if the entire present world electricity demand were to be provided by nuclear power, these ores would be exhausted within three years. Use of the remaining poorer ores in nuclear reactors would produce more CO2 emission than burning fossil fuels directly.

The carbon cost of solar and wind fair at comparable levels. The UK is looking at off shore wind, which is actaully worse. Also, remember that a wind turbine will not last as long as a nuclear plant.

However, no one in any realistic sense is suggesting that the whole world should move over to nuclear, and to make such claims shows a lack of substance in your arguement, as you need to make exaggerated claims to boister your position.

Your claim about ore availability is based upon some flawed assumptions, and I will demonstrate elsewhere why at a later date. But surfice to say it shows complete lack of appreciation of resource management and uranium ore economics.

- enrichment uses Uranium Hexafluoride which has a global warming potential 10,000 times that of CO2

You assume that is will all escape into the atmosphere.

- the waste disposal problem

Already been addressed many times on this board and elsewhere on the internet. If you can't accept that we know how to handle this material in the long term, and how stable materials are that contain it, what more can we do?

Even if they did fail in say, a few hundred years, they wouldn't actually pose any danger to wildlife or people, as they'd be stored deep under ground. You'd be at more risk moving from London to Truro (as someone said recently).

- it wont solve the transportation problem

Neither will solar or wind. What's your point?

We have 1300 - 1400 W/m2 coming from the sun, I would rather invest in researching how to harness that solar energy than some short term panacea, (not).

Nuclear energy is not a short term solution, and people who cite limitations of ore extraction show their ignorance of such issues.

The truth is that uranium reserves are where they are because that is what is economically viable to explore for atm. The industry has not needed to look for more, or develop improvements in extraction, as demand has stagnated (only recently increased, but the industry will respond). Increases in demand will drive both increases in rich available ore, and improvements in extraction methods.

We've seen similar situations in oil and gas exploration, and there is little reason not to expect a similar situation here.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by nemesis9

I agree, I am not anti-nuclear, I just don't want to see us to put all our eggs into one basket and not pursue research into solar power, etc. I also agree with your point that energy needs are growing exponentially. I haven't kept up with fusion research, but I understand some strides have been made in "cold fusion", but I haven't kept up with it.

Lets assume that fusion will never become available.

We are not suggesting that we should put all our eggs into one basket. What is being suggested is that we need nuclear plants as a significent tool in providing electricity for our nation(s). It does not pose the dangers that the likes of Greenpeace claim.

There is no reason why we can't persure both nuclear and solar.

Indeed, to see large scale solar collectors in appropriate would be a great thing to achieve, but of course, the sun's direct resource is not appropriate for everywhere, and at everywhere hour of the day.

We need affordable energy for a developed (and developing) population. Nuclear can and will provide a future for them.

[Wobs]

Originally Posted by nemesis9

I don't believe it has been fully worked out, have you calculated this over the next century, the next two centuries, the next thousand years? Have you calculated it supposing that the entire world population uses nuclear?
Have you taken into account the exponential growth of the population and the economy?

If you think really long term about this, no such solution has been worked out. Forget nuclear, solar is the way to go.

As I've said elsewhere, there is no point in assuming that the whole world will run on nuclear. Market forces, politics, technical issues regarding distribution and location issues will make that unworkable.

However, when applying for a permit to build any major new installation in the UK, one must lay out how the installation will be cleaned up after its natural life. This isn't just for a nuclear plant, but for a chemical works, steel works..... basically any such installation. Also, a bond is put in place to handle such work.

Even if you set up a landfill, you have to provide the work plans and bond to handle it after it has closed if memory serves.

Regulations have come a long way in the years since Sellerfield was Windscale.

[Skeptic]

Just a point on fuel availability for nuclear power.

Current use is a few hundred tonnes per year.
The oceans of the world hold, in solution, about 50 million tonnes. Low grade ores throughout the world hold hundreds of thousands of tonnes.

It may be that, when we have to move from high grade ores, the cost of nuclear fuel will rise. That matters less than you think. The cost of nuclear fuel is about 10% of the total cost of nuclear generated electricity. If the cost of fuel doubles, that will only increase the electricity cost by another 9%.