Why dismantle nuclear power plants?

[Christophe]

I have a question: Is there a reactor in the world that has been successfully dismantled today?

Let's start with the very first nuclear reactors in the world: what has become of the plutonium reactors of the Manhattan project?

[dedeleco]

Some response:
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratoir ... de_Hanford
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

Today, the Hanford complex is the most polluted nuclear site in the United States6,7. As clean-up activities continue, Hanford is home to the Columbia nuclear power plant as well as many research and development centers such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and LIGO

The Hanford site is a former nuclear complex located along the Columbia River in Washington State run by the United States Federal Government.

it housed reactor B, the world's first nuclear reactor for the production of plutonium1

The Hanford site covers 1518 km² of Benton County, which is half the area of ​​the Rhône. This territory is currently uninhabited and closed to the public. It is a desert area that receives less than 25 mm of precipitation per year, steppe-type vegetation. The Columbia River flows along the site for nearly 80 km, forming the northern and eastern boundary of the site

During the Cold War, the site was enlarged to accommodate nine nuclear reactors and five spent fuel processing complexes that produced plutonium for most of the 60 warheads in the US nuclear arsenal2. As nuclear technology developed rapidly during this period, scientists at the complex have made numerous technological advances. Unfortunately, most safety and waste handling procedures were inadequate and government documents have since shown that activities at the Hanford site have released significant quantities of radioactive material into the air and into the Columbia River, threatening the health of residents and the ecosystem3.

From 1944 to 1971, the cooling system sucked the water from the river and discharged it after its use in the reactor. Before discharging it into the river, the water was stored in large retention basins for six hours. Long-lived radioactive isotopes are not affected by this retention and billions of becquerels were released into the river every day. These releases were kept secret by the federal authorities3. Radiation was subsequently detected along the coasts of Oregon and Washington state38


The plutonium separation process also released radioactive isotopes into the air which were carried by wind to certain areas of Idaho, Montana and British Columbia. Many populations were affected by radioisotopes, in particular iodine 131, the largest releases of which occurred between 1945 and 1951. These radioisotopes contaminated the food chain and the populations that fed on local products. Most of these air releases were part of the routine of operations at the Hanford site, although larger releases occurred during isolated accidents. In 1949, an intentional release known as the Green Run released 8 curies of iodine-000 in two days131. Another source of contamination came from fish caught in the Columbia River, which very much affected Native American populations because it formed the basis of their diet39. A government report published in 3 reports that nearly 1992 curies of iodine-685 were released between 000 and 131

From the 1960s, scientists from the United States Public Health Service began to publish reports on the radioactivity released by the Hanford site, which angered the Oregon and State health departments. Washington. In February 1986, citizen pressure pushed the energy department to release 19 pages of previously inaccessible documents on nuclear site operations000. The Hanford Health Information Network (HHIN) citizens' association released reports on the health effects of Hanford's operations. The HHIN concludes that the radioactivity released had greatly increased the risk of cancer and other diseases. 3 people in the region filed a class action against the federal state, this trial is still not finished2.

Agencies are therefore engaged in the world's largest clean-up project and there are many overlapping technical, political and cultural issues. The cleaning effort is focused on three objectives: Rehabilitate the Columbia River bed, transform the central plateau into a center for long-term treatment and storage of waste, and prepare for the future43. The cleanup is led by the energy department under the control of the other two agencies. In recent years, the federal government has spent two billion dollars a year on the rehabilitation of the site. 11 workers work on site to clean the buildings and the floor. The cleaning was originally supposed to last 000 years, but in 30, only half of the work had been done2008. Of the four sectors listed as superfund, only one has been fully rehabilitated44.
Irradiated fuel stored in water without protections in the eastern basin

While most of the discharges ceased with the site shutdown in the 1970s, large areas remain highly contaminated. The majority of the most hazardous wastes have been treated, but concerns remain about possible contamination of groundwater downstream from the Columbia River. The health and safety of workers also remains a concern.

The most important challenge in Hanford is the stabilization of the 204m³ of high-level waste stored in 000 underground tanks. About a third of them leak and release pollutants into the soil177. In 46, most of the liquid waste was transferred to safer double-walled tanks; However, 2008m³ of liquid waste and 10m³ of radioactive sludge remain in single-walled tanks. This waste was to be treated by 600 but the end of operations has been postponed to 100. The neighboring groundwater tables would contain 000m³ of contaminated water. 2018m³ of highly radioactive waste continues to progress in the soil towards the Columbia River and it could reach it in 2040 years if no cleaning is done. The site also contains 1m³ of solid waste.

A sample of purified plutonium was found in a safe in a waste trench during excavation operations in 2004 and was fabricated in the mid-1940s making it the second oldest known plutonium sample. Analyzes published in 2009 showed that it was manufactured at Oak Ridge and then transferred to Hanford for operations to optimize the Hanford separation plant. Documents reveal that this sample belonged to the "Watt group" who stored it in the safe when they suspected a leak.

Also given the number of reactors built after, the first is negligible !!

[Christophe]

It's a "good" (bad) answer which seems to confirm the idea that I have in my mind and that everyone obviously guessed ...

[Obamot]

I have a question: Is there a reactor in the world that has been successfully dismantled today?

In the Philippines, no problem with radioactivity if one day they dismantle it ...

http://www.partirdemain.com/blog/visite ... ppines.htm

The real problem is. Is the dismantling of power plants technically, or the space available for waste storage?

A bit of both ... Crey-Malville never stops being "dismantled". But what exactly happens there and where does the waste go ... Actually?

Because suicide bombers to do the job, we will always find among those who "still believe"...

Because 50 plants will make it bigger.
Splash in the sea, like at the Hague?

[dedeleco]

It is vitrified and stored in depth to discover that the wells work over time (30000 years and more !!!!)

[Did67]

1) The works started in Brennilis (Brittany), disconnected something like 20 years ago. It was a very central petire! Start a search, and you will be edified. The cost has already exploded! And we still don't know how to do it.

See this site (attention: it is surely a primary anti-nuclear): http://seaus.free.fr/spip.php?article171

2) Read the German press a bit about the debate raging over there on where to store the ultimate waste. Each Land finds that the neighbor has a very good site ... And also the costs ...

Come on, to get back to German: http://www.google.fr/search?client=safa ... bqObi58N4G

3) Dismantling, to return to the original question, is still linked to certain elements whose half-life is considerable. So it is necessary to extract, sort, separate, vitrify and bury in layers which it is estimated that they will not rise to the surface, nor leak for a few hundred thousand or a few million years.

A sarcophagus, even the gold-priced model from Bouyghes, is not even an Urgo plaster on the nuclear scale ...

[Christophe]

With Brennilis, there is also Chooz A (or 1 or 0 I know more). An experimental demonstrator reactor in the rock and probably full of other small experimental reactors ...

It is for this reason that pro nuclear who speak of "clean" and above all "economically possible" dismantling are liars. They lie to themselves first ... or when we find commercial nuclear reactors that have been successfully dismantled (econologically speaking = ecologically and economically) in the past!

We haven't dismantled the Atlantic Wall ... why should we do it with power plants?

When I talk about clean dismantling it's like what is indicated on the commercial docs of Edf: pastures instead of the central ...

You might as well leave, as I suggest in the 1st message of this subject, everything "in place" in a secure manner ...Just to say that those who "sell" clean dismantling are thieving liars ... but I can easily understand that Edf and the other electricians use this argument to boost their prices ...

[Flytox]

In the Philippines, no problem with radioactivity if one day they dismantle it ...

http://www.partirdemain.com/blog/visite ... ppines.htm

We can still see that we do not have the monopoly of irresponsible and corrupt leaders (Marcos), but at home we do not call them dictators, but politicians who think for us about our energy "future" ... Bravo Corazon Aquino, you suspect .....

The Bataan powerhouse project had been implemented by the then president-dictator: Ferdinand Marcos. After its overthrow in 1986, the new president Corazon Aquino had opposed its start-up. She suspected significant risks, the plant being near an active volcano and a geological fault.

[nlc]

[off topic mode]

WHAT ARE THESE PUBS EVERYWHERE IN TOPICS !! ????

It is unbearable, there is fed up with these invasive pubs which flood everything !!!!

[/ off topic mode]

[I Citro]

It is for this reason that pro nuclear who speak of "clean" and above all "economically possible" dismantling are liars. They lie to themselves first ... or when we find commercial nuclear reactors that have been successfully dismantled (econologically speaking = ecologically and economically) in the past!

We haven't dismantled the Atlantic Wall ... why should we do it with power plants?

Certainly, and then building to destroy less than 50 years later is not economical.

When I talk about clean dismantling it's like what is indicated on the commercial docs of Edf: pastures instead of the central ...
You might as well leave, as I suggest in the 1st message of this subject, everything "in place" in a secure manner ...Just to say that those who "sell" clean dismantling are thieving liars ...

I can already imagine the land of former nuclear power plants converted to organic pastures ...

More seriously, it would be more reasonable to secure end-of-life sites to RECONVERT them into something else ...
I am thinking of ENR power plants (the infrastructure exists, this will already be saved). I will definitely see concentrated solar power, wind power or wind power towers instead of "aero dissipating" towers. We can also imagine thermal power plants using biomass or sludge from a wastewater treatment plant that we no longer know what to do with, especially if we are doing thermal cogeneration (heating greenhouses or hydroponics, for example).