Why don't we dump nuclear waste into volcanos?

[nemesis9]

Originally Posted by Wobs

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

Agreed, I retract that claim.

Originally Posted by Wobs

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.

However, oil and gas as we are beginning to see are not infinite resources. See the fossils fuels forum (and the web).

I have seen some articles about the limitations of the uranium supply. what information do you have that is contrary to these? What do you mean by "economically viable to explore for atm"?

[Centrillium]

Its been a while, but I've succumbed to temptation and will post briefly on the sustainability of nuclear fission...

Originally Posted by nemesis9

I have seen some articles about the limitations of the uranium supply. what information do you have that is contrary to these? What do you mean by "economically viable to explore for atm"?

As Wobs and Skeptic have pointed out, articles claiming that uranium supply is limited are usually using the figures published by the industry that list the number of years of 'proven reserves'. These are known deposits that have been explored in detail and are guaranteed to be economically 'mine-able'.

In most primary resource extraction industries, exploration for new resources is an expensive activity that is not undertaken when there are plenty of known deposits waiting to be exploited. There is no doubt that a great deal of economically recoverable uranium is still unknown, just based on the abundance in the element (it is as common as tin), the ease with which existing reserves were discovered, etc.

In addition to undiscovered 'conventional' uranium resources, there are several further 'steps' we can take in terms of changes to the fuel cycle, each of which will multiply our resources by a large factor.

1. We can bear huge increases in the price of uranium before nuclear electricity becomes uneconomic, for the reasons that Skeptic has outlined - specifically, that the cost of fuel is a small (5-10%) fraction of the cost of nuclear electricity, whereas it is a large (40-80%) fraction of the cost of fossil fuelled electricity. The Japanese estimate that uranium can be extracted from seawater at about five times its current production cost; still not at all prohibitive, and that provides potentially millions of years of supply.
   
2. We can use thorium (by breeding and fissioning U-233 in heavy water reactors or similar). Thorium is three times more abundant than uranium. Additionally, the useful isotope of thorium (Th-232) is the most common, whereas the useful uranium isotope (before breeding), U-235, is only 0.7% of natural uranium.
   
3. We can transmute and fission all transuranic isotopes in fast neutron reactors. This increases the energy return from each unit of uranium/thorium by a factor of 20-50, and goes a long way towards solving the 'waste problem' into the bargain, because the eventual true waste (fission products) will decay to harmlessness in only a few hundred years.

Any report claiming that uranium will 'peak' within a few decades assumes that...

1. no undiscovered uranium resources exist,
2. uranium will not be extracted at costs many times those of today even though this would be perfectly sensible,
3. thorium will not be used even though this would be perfectly sensible, and
4. fast neutron reactors will never be commercialised even though this too would be perfectly sensible (the technologies required have been demonstrated many times on relevant scales, which is a lot more than can be said for carbon capture or baseload wind/solar supply).

In reality, nuclear fission could provide the entire primary energy supply of civilisation for at least many tens of thousands of years without difficulty.

[Wobs]

Centy! Welcome back!

And a good post to return with. Bravo.

[mellow_hendrix]

Centy, great to have you back

[Centrillium]

Thank you both for your kind greeting.

[ecoholic92]

I was watching a film put out by the Anti-Nuclear Alliance of Western Australia dubbed "A Climate of Hope". I have the link here (gotta love YouTube) it's in three parts.
Is (most) this information true/reliable?

YouTube - Climate of Hope : Part 1

- Part 1

YouTube - Climate of Hope : Part 2

- Part 2

YouTube - Climate of Hope : Part 3

- Part 3

[Windguy]

I actually agreed with the Liberal Party of Australia when they wanted to start building nuclear power stations. The fact that the leaking radiation was even measured to be less than a coal fired powerstation (radioactive isotopes in the emissions). I'd rather not if we can get away with it, but their theories were sound enough for me.

The attack against them was the water usage which would have to place the nuclear powerstations near the coast where most of Australia's population lives. In that I had suggested a tiered payment system for electricity where how close you live to the powerstation the cheaper your electricity you got. Because we are still a sparce population we could literally make people within 50km of the NPS receive free electricity and anyone up to 150kms away receive discounted electricity, (fair use policy) and it would only add 2% of the costs to everyone elses electricity. That is to nearly cover 100% of the population with nuclear electricity and maybe to help charge up electric vehicles as well.

Without any similar policy to this then nuclear would be voted out just because no one knows where a NPS will pop up next.

The high level nuclear waste dump was thught up because Australia wanted to open up their market to less "safe countries", with a clause for all uranium sold the nuclear waste has to come back. Therefore we would be able to tell if they are siphoning off nuclear material for nuclear bombs. Two such unsafe countries were Russia and India, obviously two such countries that are major CO2 polluters (and growing) as well.

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

To Nemesis

Deathridesahorse lives in Perth. That is the single largest population centre in Western Australia - rather a nice city - I have been there 3 times. However, it is a long, long way from most of Western, South and Central Australia. It would be really easy to arrange for the hypothetical nuclear waste dump to be 1000 kms or more from Perth or any similar sized city. As I said, Australia is rather big!

Since it would, as I said before, be quite safe to live right next to, or even on top of, the dump, It is clear that separation would carry no risk to life or to the natural environment. Setting up such a dump would be a major service to humanity and to the natural world, and would bring billions of dollars into Australia. There are no grounds to object that are rational. The only grounds are based on pure, irrational emotion.

The perfectly rational explanation is that it would be supporting an irresponsible industry.

The Premier of W.A. knows he is on a winner by listening to such rationale.

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by nemesis9

If it is so safe to live right on top of it, then why do you not suggest putting it in your backyard instead of Australia. That was my point. You suggested you were willing to live right next to it or right on top of it, yet you suggested a place far away from where you live.
Not only that, you can't just assert that it would be safe with no data. Where are the studies, the experiments that prove your dump hypothesis. Furthermore, emotions are not always irrational, and for people to hesitate to live near toxic nuclear waste dumps is perfectly sane and rational. Emotions may not always be totally logical, but they do have high survival value.

All business types use a gut instinct to guide them and any talk of keeping emotions out is pure deception.

Words do not contain the truth!

Buddhism 101!

[Deathridesahorse]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

To nemesis

If you look at my first post, you will see that I specified certain criteria for safe dumping. That is : desert, very arid conditions, in a geologically stable area, and preferably well away from people. The latter is for political, not safety reasons.

Australia and the deserts of southern Africa meet these criteria. I am not sure of any other sites that do. My own back yard certainly does not. I live on New Zealand's north coast, and it is very wet and very geologically unstable.

Even the proposed dump site in Nevada does not - it is arid, but not sufficiently geologically stable. However, until a nation with the requisite conditions offers to help, dangerous waste will be dumped in unsafe sites.

About knowing the 10,000 year degrade period. That is not too difficult. Nuclear decay is a well studied process, and is utterly predictable. We study the initial decay of the waste, and can predict with exactitude what future decay will bring. 10,000 years will not make it totally unradioactive. However, as I pointed out, a little radioactivity is OK. 10,000 years is enough to lower its radioactivity to a level that would permit dumping in a city land-fill.

Just to make one thing clear. The most dangerous part of the decay of nuclear waste is the first few years, when short half life isotopes spit out radioactive particles in large numbers at high energy. Before dumping it into a final repository, it is necessary to store it, underwater for cooling, in a secure warehouse. 20 years is enough to permit the worst of the decay to occur. After that, it is possible to store it long term with little hazard, if the conditions above are met.

There is a lot of experience with the hazards of nuclear waste already. Enough to show that the more extreme claims of risk are just hogwash. In the early days, it was sealed in 200 litre steel drums and dumped at sea. Those drums would have rusted into little pieces and released tonnes of nuclear waste into the deep ocean, decades ago.

In spite of several studies into the ecological effects of this release, no damage has ever been seen. The Soviets even dissolved fresh nuclear waste in acid, and pumped it into the Arctic Ocean. Again, no ecological damage from this has been measured.

Let's not get paranoid about this. Nuclear waste is a problem that can be handled, as long as people behave rationally and forget their silly paranoid emotional superstitions.

The third paragraph screams "irresponsible industry".

This is why the W.A. Premier is on a winner with such policy.

He has listened to the people and their concerns.