Nuclear waste

[Bardal]

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?

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

Okay, between an industrial application producing electricity and transmuting waste, and the same application transmuting waste and producing electricity, do you see a difference?

[Flytox]

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...

What was explained on this forumis that there were indeed delusional choices ... and that there is no clean path !!!!!!!! (Charybdis or scylla)

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?

There may be technical solutions "which would hold up", if the main stakeholders were willing to invest in it ... (there is not won) but the problem is not so technical (easy to ignore it ). There are also governments, financial interests, shareholders, natives, laws, climatic and telluric imponderables, wars, attacks, etc ... which make rain and shine by clearly taking precedence over all the technical / technocratic solutions adopted. What we are unable to do today (control what we do (accumulation of waste, waste management, management of dangers and costs) with all the protagonists in place, what will happen when the sector no longer sells Only 1 kilowatt, but that will have to pay the slate, for the carelessness and the enormous radioactive liability left by our Nukleocrats?
I will explain it to you, There will be no more money to do what there is to do, nobody will want to pay / take charge of the bullshit of the dangerous irresponsible who have set up this sector. It is the door open to everything and its opposite in the short term and you believe that it will be 300 years, this is myopia more than optimistic ....

[Flytox]

Okay, between an industrial application producing electricity and transmuting waste, and the same application transmuting waste and producing electricity, do you see a difference?

Well for example you compare the amount of waste to be eliminated from our country (passive) and that actually eliminated by your laboratory over x years.
You can also compare the amount of waste produced per year in France and the amount that your laboratory can process in 1 year.
Then you can make a forecast. A bad language whispered to me "for a hundred or a thousand years".

If the application was made to treat waste industrially and not to produce KW, we could perhaps expect gains of a few orders of magnitude.

[sen-no-sen]

CIGEO in Bure: evacuation of the zadistes du Bois Lejuc

500 mobile gendarmes proceeded at 6:15 am, Thursday, February 22, to evacuate the zadists from Bois Lejuc, anti-Cigeo in Bure (Meuse) and to search the house of the resistance. Seven people were placed in police custody. In addition, the gendarmes undertook the clearing of the ZAD.

https://france3-regions.francetvinfo.fr/grand-est/meuse/bure/cigeo-bure-evacuation-cours-zadistes-du-bois-lejuc-1428075.html

[Bardal]

Okay, between an industrial application producing electricity and transmuting waste, and the same application transmuting waste and producing electricity, do you see a difference?

Well for example you compare the amount of waste to be eliminated from our country (passive) and that actually eliminated by your laboratory over x years.
You can also compare the amount of waste produced per year in France and the amount that your laboratory can process in 1 year.
Then you can make a forecast. A bad language whispered to me "for a hundred or a thousand years".

If the application was made to treat waste industrially and not to produce KW, we could perhaps expect gains of a few orders of magnitude.

It is better to learn at the right doors, rather than listen to "bad tongues". In fact, a 1000 MW unit, optimized to burn as much waste as possible while providing electricity, would be enough, in 1 year, to incinerate France's annual production. We are a long way from a hundred or a thousand years ago. Obviously, this is not a laboratory demonstrator ... On the other hand, it is self-financing with the electricity it produces.

[Flytox]

Okay, between an industrial application producing electricity and transmuting waste, and the same application transmuting waste and producing electricity, do you see a difference?

Well for example you compare the amount of waste to be eliminated from our country (passive) and that actually eliminated by your laboratory over x years.
You can also compare the amount of waste produced per year in France and the amount that your laboratory can process in 1 year.
Then you can make a forecast. A bad language whispered to me "for a hundred or a thousand years".

If the application was made to treat waste industrially and not to produce KW, we could perhaps expect gains of a few orders of magnitude.

It is better to learn at the right doors, rather than listen to "bad tongues". In fact, a 1000 MW slice, optimized to burn as much waste as possible while providing electricity suffice, in 1 year, to incinerate the annual production of France. We are far from a hundred or a thousand years. Obviously, it is not a laboratory demonstrator ... However, it is self-financing with the electricity it produces.

Obviously, but it is of course ..., but then ... tell us why, if enough of a 1000 MW unit, optimized to burn as much waste as possible while providing electricity "why no country gets rid of its waste like this ???? There must be one or two "menu" problems ....

There are also, for example, those who hire La Hague services at high prices to try to get rid of their crap (the most dangerous). They are really amateurs when they could do this themselves with their little slice!

[sen-no-sen]

Obviously, but it is of course ..., but then ... tell us why, if enough of a 1000 MW unit, optimized to burn as much waste as possible while providing electricity "why no country gets rid of its waste like this ???? There must be one or two "menu" problems ....

Yes, this is what I mentioned earlier:

Now the killer question: why don't we transmute the current waste?

The answer is simple, the technologies necessary to allow all this are not available and or too expensive (case of rubbiatron).
One can imagine that with the oil crisis to come and the energy problems which will ensue from it our leaders taken in panic will put the financial means in nuclear of new generation type MSFR, however this will in no way resolve the question of so-called high activity (HA) and medium long-lived activity (MA-VL) waste that will have to be buried in one way or another ...

[Bardal]

Obviously, but it is of course ..., but then ... tell us why, if enough of a 1000 MW unit, optimized to burn as much waste as possible while providing electricity "why no country gets rid of its waste like this ???? There must be one or two "menu" problems ....

Yes, this is what I mentioned earlier:

Now the killer question: why don't we transmute the current waste?

The answer is simple, the technologies necessary to allow all this are not available and or too expensive (case of rubbiatron).
One can imagine that with the oil crisis to come and the energy problems which will ensue from it our leaders taken in panic will put the financial means in nuclear of new generation type MSFR, however this will in no way resolve the question of so-called high activity (HA) and medium long-lived activity (MA-VL) waste that will have to be buried in one way or another ...

No one ever said it was "easy"; technology of this type does not develop in three swipes of a pot. But fortunately, there have already been several totally positive achievements and experiments, in France, in Europe and elsewhere (I will come back to this) ... But this type of research remains for the moment reserved for a few countries with the scientific means. and financial. It is also probable that if various more or less obscurantist organizations did not howl like piglets that are cut their throats each time we talk about nuclear, Superphénix, which was one of these prototypes, would have already "burned" a few years of Radioactive waste...

On the other hand "this will in no way resolve the issue of so-called high activity (HA) and medium-level long-lived (IL-LL) waste that will have to be buried in one way or another", if this would resolve the issue. '' essential problems: it is not the long-lived waste that is the problem (it is very weakly radioactive, by definition), and it can be stored without problem (like the ashes of coal-fired power stations, which are also weakly radioactive) long-lived); neither is it certain HA waste, which loses its toxicity in a few decades (it is easy to confine during this time); the problems are essentially posed by a category, called "minor actinides", which precisely can be transmuted or fissured in these sectors, leaving only one thousandth to one ten thousandth of their weight in the end; everything else, stored in serious shelter will have disappeared after 300 years (and that, we know how to do). On the other hand, a planet heated by a few degrees because of carbon energy, it lasts more than 300 years, and it will have done damage in the meantime; and deal with that, we don't know how to do; not at all.

[Janic]

everything else, stored in serious shelter will be gone after 300 years (and that, we know how to do it). On the other hand, a planet heated by a few degrees due to carbon energy, it lasts more than 300 years, and it will have done damage in the meantime; and deal with that, we don't know how to do it; not at all.

this is called a fine act of faith. We have been playing with nuclear power for half a century and we have already gotten into the business ... and we believe that in the future it will get better! The big lie of Santa Claus is just for children, you have to become an adult and see reality in the face!

stored in a serious shelter will have disappeared after 300 years (and that we know how to do).

We do not know more than the rest! Let's be realistic: no authority can ensure something with a view at 300 years old and even less in a serious shelter (what is this a serious shelter?) The oceans are also serious shelters and reduce heating for at least 300 years!
Each generation that passes says that the next will eventually find the right solution and in the meantime it (that is to say us) prepares a beautiful gift poisoned with each bigger whip for the next generations (it's like debt! )
For carbon energy, the whistleblowers (the same as for nuclear) had warned of the effects and consequences of all cheap fossil fuels and that the final note would be salty. We are in the thick of it because the authorities have not made a decision, out of demagoguery (and some politico-financial salads), and with a view of the American-style El Dorado.
However, we have already passed the conservation deadline and whatever the measures, taken late, the effects are too advanced to be able to reverse and our scoops will not change anything. So to believe that being blind in your left eye is better than being blind in your right eye is to put your finger in the eye precisely (which explains that we do not see more than one eye, but we still have nine fingers available)

[sen-no-sen]

long-lived waste is not the problem (it is very weakly radioactive, by definition), and it can be stored without problem (as the ash from coal-fired power plants, which are also weakly radioactive long-lived); nor are some HA wastes, which lose their toxicity in a few decades (it's easy to confine during this time)

Here I am reassuring!
If all its waste was not a problem we would not build a site like Cigéo more than 20 billion euros ...
HA (high activity) waste is extremely radioactive and is made up of components like iodine 129 whose lifespan is almost 16 million years .... what a waste!
In addition, its waste releases heat, which is not ideal for storage.
If its waste lost its toxicity in a few decades, it would be stored in hangars in the suburbs ...
As for long-lived intermediate-level waste (which goes from fuel processing residues to the bolt of a nuclear installation), some of them have the annoying tendency to release radioactive gases such as tritium ... we are very far from inert matter that you just have to forget.