Nuclear waste

Oil, gas, coal, nuclear (PWR, EPR, hot fusion, ITER), gas and coal thermal power plants, cogeneration, tri-generation. Peakoil, depletion, economics, technologies and geopolitical strategies. Prices, pollution, economic and social costs ...
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Nuclear waste




by sen-no-sen » 16/11/17, 19:06

bardal wrote:Bof, we know how to properly and surely solve the problem ... We know how to transmute, some sectors are quite suitable for this kind of thing ... We quite easily reduce the most troublesome waste (for the most part transuranics) by a factor of a thousand or ten thousand, producing only short-lived waste (after 300 years, there is almost nothing left); manage waste over 300 years, we know how to do it.

Icing on the cake, it does not cost, see this reports, the operation releasing as much energy as a conventional fuel ...

All of this has already been explained on this forum... is it already forgotten?


I have not forgotten anything since it seems to me to have spoken of it widely elsewhere ...
Transmuting waste is nothing new, this has been proposed in particular by Carlo Rubbia, Nobel Prize in Physics 1984.
Now the killer question: why don't we transmute the current waste? : Lol:
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Nuclear waste




by Ahmed » 16/11/17, 19:14

Bardal, you write:
... manage waste over 300 years, we know how to do it.

Maybe in the current state of our society, but until then? In addition, there is not only the waste, but also the operation of the power stations which must be maintained whatever happens, under penalty of serious "worries": to engage in the way of the nuclear one as it was done. rather lightly, it is also making the rather absurd hypothesis of a providential continuity, as I have previously mentioned.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839

Re: Nuclear waste




by Flytox » 16/11/17, 21:17

Bardal wrote:... manage waste over 300 years, we know how to do it.


Indeed, our nuclear history is only about 70 years old, but in this period we were only seriously concerned ... with producing energy, whatever the consequences (what a rude word!). Manage these little "next to" / "details" what are actinides and other jokes (Bombs), central to dismantle, some small firecrackers here and there (Chernobyl, Fukushima etc ...) etc ..., it's just to occupy the Ecolos, and incidentally, fill the cemeteries, well, just for a few million years, we're not going to quibble about the number of millions anyway. At Arhévah and BDF we are great lords ... we have well supplied 10% of what it will cost just the dismantling (or even less), that is enough. As long as we can get full of excavations now, behind comes what may ... It's like a loan that would run over millions of years, it's well known that it's economical. We are lucky to indebt people who do not yet exist, whom we will never know, without ever asking their opinion, but they will have to pay! It's normal that these future idiots work for us, just to be able to stay alive.

Finally in this context of visual navigation, some are responding to the challenges of millions of years by not being screwed to supply the consumers of now with the me.de they do now. From there to knowing "to manage waste over 300 years", there are some who are not afraid to throw enormities !
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.
[Eugène Ionesco]
http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Nuclear waste




by Bardal » 16/11/17, 21:45

sen-no-sen wrote:
bardal wrote:... / ...
Icing on the cake, it does not cost, see this reports, the operation releasing as much energy as a conventional fuel ...

All of this has already been explained on this forum... is it already forgotten?


I have not forgotten anything since it seems to me to have spoken of it widely elsewhere ...
Transmuting waste is nothing new, this has been proposed in particular by Carlo Rubbia, Nobel Prize in Physics 1984.
Now the killer question: why don't we transmute the current waste? : Lol:


However, this has already been done, through various demonstrators, Megapie in particular, and prototypes, both in France and in Europe and abroad. Above all, it remains to develop industrial applications (super phoenix was one), which seems rather frowned upon by some "environmentalists". But it will come quickly, given the efforts of China and India ... It does not matter, we will buy them, like the PV panels ...
Last edited by Bardal the 16 / 11 / 17, 22: 03, 1 edited once.
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Nuclear waste




by Bardal » 16/11/17, 21:52

Ahmed wrote:Bardal, you write:
... manage waste over 300 years, we know how to do it.

Maybe in the current state of our society, but until then? In addition, there is not only the waste, but also the operation of the power stations which must be maintained whatever happens, under penalty of serious "worries": to engage in the way of the nuclear one as it was done. rather lightly, it is also making the rather absurd hypothesis of a providential continuity, as I have previously mentioned.


It is clear that if one postulates from the start that nuclear energy is evil, there is no longer any way out for nuclear waste; not in the landfill either ...

Do not delude yourself anyway, you will not stop scientific research or knowledge of matter ... You will not prevent either that a coal-fired power plant produces more nuclear waste, for a quantity of electricity produced equal than a nuclear power plant ...
0 x
Bardal
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 509
Registration: 01/07/16, 10:41
Location: 56 and 45
x 198

Re: Nuclear waste




by Bardal » 16/11/17, 22:02

Flytox wrote:
Bardal wrote:... manage waste over 300 years, we know how to do it.


Indeed, our nuclear history is only about 70 years old, but in this period we were only seriously concerned ... with producing energy, whatever the consequences .
... / ...
From there to knowing "to manage waste over 300 years", there are some who are not afraid to throw enormities !


Well no, precisely ... ON was mainly occupied with something else, in particular the production of delusional armaments, which were the first priority of the governments of the time. This is even what explains, for the most part, the non-development of the Thorium sector, for example, and the priority given to dirty sectors, producing waste ... This too has already been explained on this forum...

As for the 300 years, yes, it is indeed a duration on a historical scale, even brief, which constitutes an essential qualitative advantage compared to durations of several tens of thousands of years. Should we really explain it?
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Nuclear waste




by Ahmed » 16/11/17, 22:03

Where do you see the devil : Twisted: Is it the angel who speaks? :D
I also don't think I promoted coal-fired power plants, which on your part is just a speculative deduction.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Nuclear waste




by sen-no-sen » 16/11/17, 22:17

bardal wrote:
But, this has already been done, through various demonstrators, Megapie in particular, and prototypes, both in France and in Europe and abroad. Above all, it remains to develop industrial applications (super phoenix was one), which seems rather frowned upon by some "environmentalists". But it will come quickly, given the efforts of China and India ...


The purpose of breeders is not to reprocess vitrified waste packages which have been voluntarily rendered unusable.
It is for this reason that we are building the CIGEO site, we would not gobble up 25 billion (more expensive than ITER or the LGV Paca!) If we had a simple solution.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Flytox
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 14138
Registration: 13/02/07, 22:38
Location: Bayonne
x 839

Re: Nuclear waste




by Flytox » 16/11/17, 22:34

bardal wrote:
sen-no-sen wrote:I have not forgotten anything since it seems to me to have spoken of it widely elsewhere ...
Transmuting waste is nothing new, this has been proposed in particular by Carlo Rubbia, Nobel Prize in Physics 1984.
Now the killer question: why don't we transmute the current waste? : Lol:


But, this has already been done, through various demonstrators, Megapie in particular, and prototypes, both in France and in Europe and abroad. Remains especially to develop industrial applications (super phoenix was one), which seems rather frowned upon by some "environmentalists". But it will come quickly, given the efforts of China and India ... It does not matter, we will buy them, like the PV panels ...


Demonstrators yes .... For Superphénix it was an industrial application .... for make electricity and not to transmute waste, even if it served as a laboratory for a time. The nuke industry has never built an industrial application to transmute, because it does not want an (enormous) additional cost that would harm its KW price moreover increasingly uncompetitive.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superph%C3%A9nix
0 x
Reason is the madness of the strongest. The reason for the less strong it is madness.

[Eugène Ionesco]

http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index. ... te&no=4132
Xana19
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 1
Registration: 16/11/17, 22:36

Re: nuclear waste opinions, info and ideas




by Xana19 » 16/11/17, 22:37

lug wrote:the problem of nuclear waste is the life of the elements produced by the plants, I am not far from the hague
and an independent laboratory often giving results different from the official results can be found at herouville st clair (calvados)
about 30000 years for uranium to decompose, the most dangerous is still the plutonium 239; think of plutonium 240 that is also found (as by chance (large anti-tobacco campaigns but not without reason)) in the smoke of cigarettes because this poison is fixed on plants (nuclear explosions atmospheric ........ known to general public and ..... unknown) and destroys many compounds of the DNA (cancers) or provokes mutations
in my opinion, we could use nuclear waste by trying to reprocess it to make it less dangerous and use it to generate heat

an insane idea comes to mind: let's bury them or destroy them at the oil producers


for boiler rooms, for my part, I would prefer to use hydrogen (there are methods for generating heat from hydrogen: it is sufficient to burn it in the presence of oxygen in a closed hermetic environment: as in the cylinder of an engine to recover energy in the form of heat

what is most important is to definitively cease the use of nuclear fuels by reprocessing these wastes as explained below and to begin to decontaminate the already existing sites to leave the clean place for our children.

For my part, I prefer to pay to EDF clean electricity or generate it myself (wind turbines coupled to a hydro generator, these are ideas)
CDG transfers

For the reprocessing of the nuclear waste, another company in the USA other than the cogema
we do not talk about
Http: //www.nuclearsolutions.com
and the iter process (of which we rebath the ears)
which should allow to recycle nuclear materials

lug

You are totally right
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Go back to "Fossil energies: oil, gas, coal and nuclear electricity (fission and fusion)"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : Google [Bot] and 304 guests