Sellafield returns nuclear waste to Japan

[Notebook]

Didn't know we had any, never mind returning it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8469249.stm

In simple terms, nuclear reprocessing involves cutting up spent nuclear fuel rods into small bits that are dissolved in acid.
Uranium and plutonium is extracted from the mix, and this can be reused to make new nuclear fuel, which is then returned to nuclear power plants.
The remainder is then waste in a liquid form.
This is kept in evaporation ponds for long periods, eventually being reduced to a powdery substance that is then dissolved in liquid glass heated to some 1,100C.
This cocktail is then poured into steel canisters that resemble milk churns.

Don't look anything like milk churns, but at least they haven't used Olympic size swimming pools as a unit of volume.

 

[Artlav]

So, when will we be launching it into the Sun? Or onto the Moon at least.

Even better, why not reuse the stuff? High radioactivity = energy output, and there should be ways to use it, like in trigalight.

 

[Turbinator]

The only thing that makes sense is de-orbiting it in to the Sun.

 

[Kaito]

The only thing that makes sense is de-orbiting it in to the Sun.

Two problems:
1) what happens if the rocket carrying nuclear material goes boom? NASA's now got a bigger problem on their hands...
2) IIRC, it takes 30k dV to hit the sun from earth. That's A LOT of fuel. Have we ever had a ship that can do that?

 

[Turbinator]

Those nuclear waste containers are indestructible, anything a launch failure could do to a container, it would survive:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mHtOW-OBO4"]YouTube- Nuclear Flask Endurance Testing in USA[/ame]

We have sent quite a few solar probes very near the sun. This wouldn't be any different, just bring it close enough to the sun, and serious solar friction would take care of the rest.

It would be cheaper energy wise to fly something straight in to the sun, than to park it in to it's orbit, like we have already done. Break Earth orbit, and you are already in solar orbit, then once far enough from Earth's gravity influence, decrease your perihelion, and the sun will take care of the rest. Some serious aero-braking right there.




.

 

[jedidia]

This wouldn't be any different

except we're talking alot of launches here. if the costs are put on my electricity bill, I guess I'll have to think wheather I'll permit myself the luxury of a lamp tonight or if I'd rather go with a candle...

 

[JamesG]

Even better, why not reuse the stuff? High radioactivity = energy output, and there should be ways to use it, like in trigalight.

Yes. There should be a way of building RTGs with this stuff. Stamp/cast the waste into disks, and assemble the stacks within a sheilded container. Bury them deep and wire them into the grid. Individually they may not generate much, but we have a lot of the waste sitting around decaying worthlessly. At least this way they might be able to pay their keep.

 

[Sky Captain]

Most of a stuff that`s called nuclear waste is Uranium 238 because current power reactors can`t use it. Overall the "nuclear waste" is valuable material containing isotopes useful in medicine and industry, dumping and burying it is nothing more than shortsightedness. I bet if after some 30 - 40 still won`t be practical fusion reactors we will dig out todays nuclear waste and chuck it into breeder reactors to power the world since current reactors can use only some 1 - 3 % from true potential of nuclear fuel.

 

[Ark]

It seems to me that if it's still throwing out radiation, we should be able to find some sort of use for it.

 

[willy88]

It seems to me that if it's still throwing out radiation, we should be able to find some sort of use for it.

"Green" household heating? :lol:

 

[JamesG]

"Throw another Rad on the barbie!"

 

[T.Neo]

I've heard of a concept called "hot drop" before: essentially, a ball of nuclear waste is covered in tungsten and heated to a few thousand degrees C. The hot ball then proceeds to melt its way through the crust, and into the crust-mantle boundary.

It's IMO quite an attractive idea, providing that the ball does not explode or cool down within only a few meters. It it works, its stuck under around 20km of rock- it ain't coming to the surface unless millions of years of tectonics pushes it out...

Staying on the slightly saner side of things, I think the Moon would be a better place to put nuclear waste then the Sun.

Burying nuclear waste on the Moon is safer then doing so on Earth: the Moon has no water cycle and is essentially tectonically and volcanically dead. Impacts are consderably rare, and if the waste is buried far enough it should lessen the chance of an impact-induced breach.


As long as impact and reentry resistant containers for the waste can be produced, and a cheap enough means of getting it to the Moon is possible, I find it far more plausible then sending it to the sun. It also remains there for potential reuse and refining, if the need or possibility arises.

 

[Urwumpe]

Problem is just, that rock is a pretty good absorber for heat. It doesn't quickly melt away, it needs a lot of energy to get temperature - and then keeps it.

 

[T.Neo]

Indeed.

 

[Andy44]

I can't see how launching nuclear waste into space is even remotely cost-effective. Apparently, neither did the guys who did all those studies back in the day, since we aren't doing it.

 

[pattersoncr]

As was pointed out upthread, the vast majority of spent nuclear fuel is uranium which, once separated, is no more dangerous than it was when it came out of the ground. Most of the rest decays quickly and is less radioactive than the ore it came from in a couple hundred years.
It seems an awfull waste of effort to launch it into space to get rid of it when there are no insurmountable problems to dealing with it on the ground.
Of course, the quantity of material we're talking about is small enough that it would be physicaly possible to launch it all into space. Nuclear power is the only reliable form of energy generation for which this is true.