Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Climate Change] : Paris Agreement Signed

189111314

Posts

  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    I am not sure what you guys are going on about, now. Higher CO2 levels did not enable larger individual plants--as far as I know, the redwoods of today dwarf any plants from the Cretaceous. Similarly, the largest animal to exist--ever--is alive right now (although perhaps not for much longer). What the higher O2 levels of the past did allow were larger arthropods. Animals with primitive lungs are much more constrained by atmospheric O2 levels.

    Thinking about it, I suspect the increased prevalence and intensity of wildfires associated with high O2 levels would actually disfavor exceptionally large individual plants.

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Germany shutting down nuclear power because of Fukushima is one of the dumbest things Germany has done in the last ten years. Like, number one is the balls stupid way they set up the Euro and then this.

    Fucking pointless NIMBY bullshit.

    See, we got 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima. The assumption was that nuclear power is safe if handled properly. We now know that isn't the case, with two major incidents in 25 years. If you do the statistics you can expect four major incidents in a century or about fourty each millenia. It means we render this planet uninhabitable in a relatively short ime if we continue this. Its playing russian roulette with your country.

    Now, in Germany anti-nuclear movements really have tradition, it started with the anti-Pershing movement during the cold war in the sixties. Germans always had a problem with nuclear technology in the country, with regular activist actions as material is transported to waste and enrichment sites. The cloud drifting over from Chernobyl din't help the issue one bit and so did the fact that the media coverage was fairly late in admitting it in the evening, after everybody had been outside in the rain.

    Add to that diverse leakage scandals in waste deposit facilities (no, we don't simply dump it into the sea), as well with containers and also the discussion of the issue how to develope warning signs wich will mark the wast deposit sites for furure millenia to come in a understandable manner ("this will kill you if you open it" in a easy understood, universal language for civilizations to come).

    We already were shutting down nuclear power before Fukushima, but as the government party changed the agenda was abandoned (the shutdown of the shoutdown, if you want) but all of that changed again in an instant as Fukushima happened - the governing party realized that the issue would blow up in their face and did a 180-degree reverse of their opinion (again). Of course they took and still take flak for two 180-degree changes in agenda, wich is ridiculous enough.

    Thats why Germany is shuttign down its nuclear reactors and the government will not reverse the agenda again. They can't. They already lost most of their credibility on the issue. It would be suicidy for any party wich plans on being reelected.

    ACSIS on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Germany shutting down nuclear power because of Fukushima is one of the dumbest things Germany has done in the last ten years. Like, number one is the balls stupid way they set up the Euro and then this.

    Fucking pointless NIMBY bullshit.

    See, we got 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima. The assumption was that nuclear power is safe if handled properly. We now know that isn't the case, with two major incidents in 25 years. If you do the statistics you can expect four major incidents in a century or about fourty each millenia. It means we render this planet uninhabitable in a relatively short ime if we continue this. Its playing russian roulette with your country.

    Both of those examples are of nuclear power not being handled properly, so I repeat,

    NIMBY.
    Bullshit.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    There is no "handling poperly" in the face of natural disasters. This was the lesson learned. You may act on that lesson or you won't. Besides "handling properly" doesn't include dumping the waste into the sea in my book either.
    Paris, 19 June 2000 Greenpeace today released new images of the legacy of radioactive waste dumping at sea from ships. The shocking footage was taken in the Hurd Deep, in UK territorial waters just off the Channel Islands and some 15km north-west of Cap de La Hague (France).

    It shows corroding, broken and disintegrated barrels of radioactive waste, remnants of some 28,500 barrels tipped into the sea by the UK between 1950 and 1963. Hurd Deep is one of many such dumpsites used until a global ban was agreed in 1993.

    Two Greenpeace vessels, the MV Greenpeace and the Twister, spent the last two weeks scanning the seabed at depths up to 100 meters. Once they located radioactive waste barrels, a Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) fitted with cameras was dispatched to the seabed to make a closer inspection. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency's 1999 Global Inventory of Radioactive Wastes in the Marine Environment, the total radioactive inventory of the Hurd Deep is a staggering 57,942 GigaBequerels.

    "Although dumping radioactive wastes at sea from ships is now banned, paradoxically the discharge of radioactive wastes into the sea via pipelines from land is not," said Mike Townsley of Greenpeace. "Such 'double standards' are not maintained for technical or scientific reasons, but only because the operators of the nuclear reprocessing facilities in La Hague (France) and Sellafield (UK) want to save money."

    "It is cheaper for them to continue to use the sea as a radioactive garbage bin than to store this radioactive waste on land; for the nuclear industry, money comes first and the environment second", said Mike Townsley (2).

    Each year, Europe's giant nuclear reprocessing facilities at Sellafield in the UK and La Hague in France, discharge hundreds of millions of litters of radioactive waste into the sea. The amount of radioactivity discharged from La Hague and Sellafield in only 9 months exceeds that dumped in the Hurd Deep.

    "Hurd Deep and the other former ocean dump sites stand testament to the irreversibility of dumping radioactive wastes in the ocean -- regardless of whether from a ship or a land-based pipe", said Mike Townsley.

    Carried by the ocean currents, radioactivity from La Hague and Sellafield has already been detected in sea life around the coasts of Scandinavia, Iceland and the Arctic, and will continue to build up in the food chain, threatening the health of millions of people, unless the discharges stop immediately.

    ACSIS on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Or, you don't build them in Japan. Or, you don't let them slide by and not be decommissioned on schedule.

    You're point is bad and you should feel bad, fear of the nuclear menace caused this problem in the first place.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    See we got 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima. The assumption was that nuclear power is safe if wielded securely. We now know that isn't the case, with two major incidents in 25 years. If you do the statistics you can expect four major incidents or about fourty each millenia. It means we render this planet uninhabitable in a relatively short ime if we continue this.

    That's nonsense. Chernobyl was a result of engineering faults with the plant (no containment chamber), Fukushima was a combination of cost-cutting, regulations failure a widespread catastrophe. Many other reactors in many other countries have been running safely for long periods of time, and as long as we insist on high standards for safety, the technology itself is safe.

    With Love and Courage
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The problem is profiteers will always be a security risk with this kind of technology in their hands. Too much money involved and corruption leads to disaster. Always the same story. Do you think its different in other countries? Seriously?

    ACSIS on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    See we got 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima. The assumption was that nuclear power is safe if wielded securely. We now know that isn't the case, with two major incidents in 25 years. If you do the statistics you can expect four major incidents or about fourty each millenia. It means we render this planet uninhabitable in a relatively short ime if we continue this.

    That's nonsense. Chernobyl was a result of engineering faults with the plant (no containment chamber), Fukushima was a combination of cost-cutting, regulations failure a widespread catastrophe. Many other reactors in many other countries have been running safely for long periods of time, and as long as we insist on high standards for safety, the technology itself is safe.

    I don't often agree with The Ender, and it's always a pleasant day when I do. This so much.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I have serious doubts these "high standarts for safety" are the reason for the other reactors "running safe", instead of... lets say: not being hit by natural disasters as the major difference factor ^^
    Nuclear power has its applications, foremost in space exploration, but as a malmanaged tool for local energy production in the hands of organizations bent on piling up profit (by cutting the said "high security standarts" for an example) is not a very good solution.

    ACSIS on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Your argument is bad, Acsis.

    Because certain places are more prone to natural disasters, all nuclear power plants should be shuttered is silly.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    So you betting on where natural disasters strike and where not, way to go to handle nuclear technology safely... by betting.
    Additionally there are quite a number of reactors in known earthquake zones, so thats not even factored in despite better knowledge.

    ACSIS on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Every power plant ever is bad for the environment and dangerous.

    It's not betting, stop being a goose.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Yeah, but not every power plant produces waste issues for the next billion years to come, you are comparing apples to oranges and it IS betting, you are in for about two to three more major incidents in your lifetime. Sometime it takes a while to learn a lesson.

    ACSIS on
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The problem is profiteers will always be a security risk with this kind of technology in their hands. Too much money involved and corruption leads to disaster. Always the same story. Do you think its different in other countries? Seriously?

    It has not lead to widespread corruption & disaster in France, where civilian nuclear applications have really taken-off, and where the recycling programs for old warheads have also taken-off.

    I mean, let's look specifically at Fukushima:

    TEPCO was informed by experts that they should not build the reactors in that location. If that had been a regulatory law instead of a recommendation, TEPCO would've built the plant on higher ground and we would not be having a conversation regarding a meltdown.

    If Japan's minimum standards were slightly higher, and required that the building housing the generators be either in an underground bunker or on higher ground, we also would not be having a conversation about the meltdown right now.


    It's not about corruption, it's about carelessness and a lack of respect for the materials being handled. Yes, of course, we shouldn't expect TEPCO to care about plant safety - they're only looking at their bottom line. That's why strong regulatory bodies and demands for high standards are important.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Manageable waste that was already radioactive before it got messed with and power plants that shoot out a bunch of radiation and carcinogens.

    Hmmmm

    I don't really care if you're antinuclear power, but you need much better arguments than OMG WHAT IF THERE'S A WORST CASE SCENARIO if you want me to take you seriously.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Lets just say the way we handle nuclear power those already radioactive materials wich do exist on our planet become dramatically more nasty and enduring.

    And since we agree we got a problem with carelessness and lack of respect in handling those materials there is only one conclusion to draw: we got to stop this sooner or later. In your case maybe later but thats just a matter of time, if i am right.

    And we haven't even scratched the issue of the arising possibility for a nuclear war if you factor in nuclear weapons and give or take a few millenia where such weapons are aviable.

    ACSIS on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't really see the problem with shoving waste under a mountain thousands of miles away from where people live.

    So, until the point where wind/solar becomes useful for all our needs or we invent fusion my "let's stop using nuclear power plants" point basically doesn't exist.

    I'd like to shut down oil/gas/coal plants ASAP though, those are horrifically bad. I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal plant at the very least.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    It might come as a surprise, but i agree on your view on fossil fuels. There are other, better solutions.

    ACSIS on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Well I assumed if you were anti nuke you'd be anti fossil fuels, if you weren't I'd be questioning your sanity.

    I get why you're anti-nuke, I just don't agree with it and am more than willing to have a friendly shake of the hands and agree to disagree.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    Lets just say the way we handle nuclear power those already radioactive materials wich do exist on our planet become dramatically more nasty and enduring.

    ...Which materials? Uranium, by itself, is already plenty dangerous in it's natural state. Modern reactors (Hell, even older reactors) produce surprisingly little waste (mostly in the form of radioactive coolant, not actual fissile material), especially in comparison to fossil fuel plants.
    And we haven't even scratched the issue of the arising possibility for a nuclear war if you factor in nuclear weapons and give or take a few millenia where such weapons are aviable.

    Civilian nuclear programs actually have actually reduced weapons stockpiles rather than increased them, thanks to modern recycling programs. It's much cheaper for energy companies to just buy-up old warheads and use the material as fuel than to dig-up new ore, so (of course) they've been happy to cannibalize our old bombs & missiles.

    With Love and Courage
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    *nods* alright

    Personally i am convinced hydrogen fuels may be the holy grail for clean energy (i am not that optimisitic about fusion power plants). Of course it takes energy to produce this fuel. I am thinking more in the direction of harnessing geothermal energy, tidal forces, air and water currents (also subsea currents) for the purpose of hydrogen fuel productions. There is lots of energy aviable on our planet. It just has to be ultilized properly.

    All applications of nuclear technology for power generation (with the exception of deep space exploration) seems to me like trying to cut butter with a chainsaw. Of course it works, but...

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Hydrogen fuels are a keen interest of mine as well, especially in regards to powering automobiles. The US basically produces enough hydrogen to power itself already (now that we can harvest it from industrial exhaust among other things).

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    ...Which materials? Uranium, by itself, is already plenty dangerous in it's natural state. Modern reactors (Hell, even older reactors) produce surprisingly little waste (mostly in the form of radioactive coolant, not actual fissile material), especially in comparison to fossil fuel plants.

    Reactors especially produce Plutonium for one example. Plutonium is used for nuclear weapons, so it INCREASES stockpiles.
    Are you really trying to tell me that you want to compare fossil fuel waste emissions to something which has a half-life of 24,100 years?
    And thats just one of many examples. There is stuff wich lasts billions of years in the nuclear waste. Can you even imagine handling waste for such a period?
    Because thats what you are proposing. I bet it will be "securely handled" during the entire period, guranteed and reassured. No problem here.

    Later generations will certainly curse our existance at one point for sure, if we don't kill them before, that is.

    ACSIS on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't think you can use reactor waste to build nuclear weapons without an insane amount of refinement.

    And sticking it under a mountain for thousands of years is really all you need to do to "handle" it.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    <Redacted Pedantry ;)>

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Yeah, noticed that, too ^^
    That star comes with a limited lifetime warranty.

    I am not that sure the mountain will remain there for that span of time, to be honest. I belive its out of the question to solve the problem of handling the waste for an extended period of time. There are factors like erosion wich seriously subvert any long time storage concept. We can't do it.

    ACSIS on
  • CycloneRangerCycloneRanger Registered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    ...Which materials? Uranium, by itself, is already plenty dangerous in it's natural state. Modern reactors (Hell, even older reactors) produce surprisingly little waste (mostly in the form of radioactive coolant, not actual fissile material), especially in comparison to fossil fuel plants.

    Reactors especially produce Plutonium for one example. Plutonium is used for nuclear weapons, so it INCREASES stockpiles.
    Are you really trying to tell me that you want to compare fossil fuel waste emissions to something which has a half-life of 24,100 years?
    And thats just one of many examples. There is stuff wich lasts billions of years in the nuclear waste. Can you even imagine handling waste for such a period?
    Because thats what you are proposing. I bet it will be "securely handled" during the entire period, guranteed and reassured. No problem here.

    Later generations will certainly curse our existance at one point for sure, if we don't kill them before, that is.
    You're totally ignorant of the physics involved, aren't you? The longer a half-life a substance has, the less radioactive it is. The dangerous types of waste are those with short half-lives, not long ones. Something with a billion-year half-life can be safely stored by mixing it back into waste rock and burying it--after all, that's the condition it was in before we mined it, and in most cases it will be even less radioactive due to our having burned the more radioactive isotopes.

  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    Thorium.

    Has someone mentioned that yet?

    Thorium.

    It's the godwin-equivalent for discussions of nuclear power. Let's say it again:

    Thorium.

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mjollnir.jpg

    Thorium!


    @Zephiran did mention molten salt Thorium reactors. This is the type of thing I refer to when I say, "It's much better now,"

    Requires no external coolant (it basically cannot overheat & undergo a meltdown), runs on resources that are very abundant, extremely limited waste products, extremely high efficiency, etc. If there are serious drawbacks, I'm not aware of them.

    The Ender on
    With Love and Courage
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    saggio wrote: »
    Thorium.

    Has someone mentioned that yet?

    Thorium.

    It's the godwin-equivalent for discussions of nuclear power. Let's say it again:

    Thorium.

    Say it again. I get a stiffy everytime someone brings up Thorium reactors.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    NSFW. Assuming you work with nuclear physicists.
    4711710EE4177120191CC52A3448179E421C836A_large.jpg

    With Love and Courage
  • TofystedethTofystedeth veni, veneri, vamoosi Registered User regular
    Arrg typo in the very first line of the image. Major bonerkill.

    steam_sig.png
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    NSFW. Assuming you work with nuclear physicists.
    4711710EE4177120191CC52A3448179E421C836A_large.jpg

    Dirty girl!

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The Ender wrote: »
    mjollnir.jpg

    Thorium!


    @Zephiran did mention molten salt Thorium reactors. This is the type of thing I refer to when I say, "It's much better now,"

    Requires no external coolant (it basically cannot overheat & undergo a meltdown), runs on resources that are very abundant, extremely limited waste products, extremely high efficiency, etc. If there are serious drawbacks, I'm not aware of them.

    Weakness against frost giants?

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    It's not cheaper to cut corners when the feds will end you when they find out.

    NIMBY.

    Bullshit.

    This. I'm okay with Obama deploying SEAL Team 6 against anyone who breaks from nuclear safety regulations in order to save some cash up front. In fact, I encourage it.

    "Want to put peoples' lives at risk by cutting corners so you can have a little extra Fuck Off money? Fine. Black helicopters are on their way to your location right now. Don't bother hiding; they can see through walls."

  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    mjollnir.jpg

    Thorium!


    @Zephiran did mention molten salt Thorium reactors. This is the type of thing I refer to when I say, "It's much better now,"

    Requires no external coolant (it basically cannot overheat & undergo a meltdown), runs on resources that are very abundant, extremely limited waste products, extremely high efficiency, etc. If there are serious drawbacks, I'm not aware of them.

    Weakness against frost giants?

    Weakness? Pray tell good sir, how many frost giants do you see walking around these days?

    I thought so.

  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Germany shutting down nuclear power because of Fukushima is one of the dumbest things Germany has done in the last ten years. Like, number one is the balls stupid way they set up the Euro and then this.

    Fucking pointless NIMBY bullshit.

    See, we got 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima. The assumption was that nuclear power is safe if handled properly. We now know that isn't the case, with two major incidents in 25 years. If you do the statistics you can expect four major incidents in a century or about fourty each millenia. It means we render this planet uninhabitable in a relatively short ime if we continue this. Its playing russian roulette with your country.

    Fukushima is one of the oldest nuclear reactors still in existence and still was pretty minor considering what happened, the fuel oil plant that exploded caused more environmental damage

    That said, this is just flat out wrong, the newest nuclear designs cannot fail unless the laws of physics change. Pebble bed reactors. They cannot melt down. Like it cannot happen, Dr Who or Q from star trek would need to be involved. Nuclear is a long term safe source of power, breeders allow us to reprocess spent fuel, thorium reactors have the potential for far less toxic waste product, and there's plenty of places we can stick waste that we can be pretty are safe for so far into the future that speculating about it is pointless.

    override367 on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    ACSIS wrote: »
    Germany shutting down nuclear power because of Fukushima is one of the dumbest things Germany has done in the last ten years. Like, number one is the balls stupid way they set up the Euro and then this.

    Fucking pointless NIMBY bullshit.

    See, we got 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima. The assumption was that nuclear power is safe if handled properly. We now know that isn't the case, with two major incidents in 25 years. If you do the statistics you can expect four major incidents in a century or about fourty each millenia. It means we render this planet uninhabitable in a relatively short ime if we continue this. Its playing russian roulette with your country.

    Fukushima is decades old and still was pretty minor considering what happened, the fuel oil plant that exploded caused more environmental damage

    That said, this is just flat out wrong, the newest nuclear designs cannot fail unless the laws of physics change. Pebble bed reactors. They cannot melt down. Like it cannot happen, Dr Who or Q from star trek would need to be involved.

    Fucking tachyon reactors are too unstable to be a viable alternative anyway.

  • ACSISACSIS Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    cannot fail unless the laws of physics change
    Problem is the great majority of reactors CAN fail. And the waste issue remains, of course. Also people claimed the Titanic couldn't sink.
    You're totally ignorant of the physics involved, aren't you? The longer a half-life a substance has, the less radioactive it is.
    True that, but 24000 years is still a looong time. If you think Plutonium is no health risk, you are probably okay with the rest of the world stashing it under your bed, right?
    Uranium tailings
    Removal of very low-level waste

    Uranium tailings are waste by-product materials left over from the rough processing of uranium-bearing ore. They are not significantly radioactive. Mill tailings are sometimes referred to as 11(e)2 wastes, from the section of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 that defines them. Uranium mill tailings typically also contain chemically hazardous heavy metal such as lead and arsenic. Vast mounds of uranium mill tailings are left at many old mining sites, especially in Colorado, New Mexico, and Utah.

    Low-level waste

    Low level waste (LLW) is generated from hospitals and industry, as well as the nuclear fuel cycle. Low-level wastes include paper, rags, tools, clothing, filters, and other materials which contain small amounts of mostly short-lived radioactivity. Materials that originate from any region of an Active Area are commonly designated as LLW as a precautionary measure even if there is with only a remote possibility of being contaminated with radioactive materials. Such LLW typically exhibits no higher radioactivity than one would expect from the same material disposed of in a non-active area, such as a normal office block.

    Some high-activity LLW requires shielding during handling and transport but most LLW is suitable for shallow land burial. To reduce its volume, it is often compacted or incinerated before disposal. Low-level waste is divided into four classes: class A, class B, class C, and Greater Than Class C (GTCC).

    Intermediate-level waste
    Spent fuel flasks are transported by railway in the United Kingdom. Each flask is constructed of 14 in (360 mm) thick solid steel and weighs in excess of 50 tons

    Intermediate-level waste (ILW) contains higher amounts of radioactivity and in some cases requires shielding. Intermediate-level wastes includes resins, chemical sludge and metal reactor nuclear fuel cladding, as well as contaminated materials from reactor decommissioning. It may be solidified in concrete or bitumen for disposal. As a general rule, short-lived waste (mainly non-fuel materials from reactors) is buried in shallow repositories, while long-lived waste (from fuel and fuel reprocessing) is deposited in geological repository. U.S. regulations do not define this category of waste; the term is used in Europe and elsewhere.

    High-level waste

    High-level waste (HLW) is produced by nuclear reactors. It contains fission products and transuranic elements generated in the reactor core. It is highly radioactive and often thermally hot. HLW accounts for over 95 percent of the total radioactivity produced in the process of nuclear electricity generation. The amount of HLW worldwide is currently increasing by about 12,000 metric tons every year, which is the equivalent to about 100 double-decker buses or a two-story structure with a footprint the size of a basketball court. A 1000-MW nuclear power plant produces about 27 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel (unreprocessed) every year.

    Transuranic waste

    Transuranic waste (TRUW) as defined by U.S. regulations is, without regard to form or origin, waste that is contaminated with alpha-emitting transuranic radionuclides with half-lives greater than 20 years and concentrations greater than 100 nCi/g (3.7 MBq/kg), excluding high-level waste. Elements that have an atomic number greater than uranium are called transuranic ("beyond uranium"). Because of their long half-lives, TRUW is disposed more cautiously than either low- or intermediate-level waste. In the U.S., it arises mainly from weapons production, and consists of clothing, tools, rags, residues, debris and other items contaminated with small amounts of radioactive elements (mainly plutonium).

    Under U.S. law, transuranic waste is further categorized into "contact-handled" (CH) and "remote-handled" (RH) on the basis of radiation dose measured at the surface of the waste container. CH TRUW has a surface dose rate not greater than 200 Roentgen equivalent man per hour (to millisievert/hr), whereas RH TRUW has a surface dose rate of 200 Röntgen equivalent man per hour (2 mSv/h) or greater. CH TRUW does not have the very high radioactivity of high-level waste, nor its high heat generation, but RH TRUW can be highly radioactive, with surface dose rates up to 1000000 Röntgen equivalent man per hour (10000 mSv/h). The U.S. currently disposes of TRUW generated from military facilities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant.
    WHY are we doing this when better alternatives are possible?

    ACSIS on
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    ACSIS wrote: »
    True that, but 24000 years is still a looong time. If you think Plutonium is no health risk, you are probably okay with the rest of the world stashing it under your bed, right?

    So long as it was encased in lead, and I was paid to do so, sure. It's a recession; gotta make money where I can.

    Hacksaw on
Sign In or Register to comment.