Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

[nwdiver]

Your reasoning is far from sound. If it were economical to separate the highly radioactive material from radioactive waste we would be doing that.

There are few more corrosive environments on earth than in the sea. The dry storage casks you mention are just that, "dry" storage, not "at the bottom of the ocean" storage.

You can "monitor" the area all you want. You can't do anything about ships in international waters.

The main problem is that if there were easy solutions, we would be using them. You might as well have suggested that we shoot the waste into the sun.

The good news is that we will be making less and less nuclear waste as the reactors are shut down. In 30 years there will be very few commercial reactors remaining in operation in the US anyway. The costs don't permit it even when you don't count the cost of dealing with the waste. Renewable energy has already crossed the threshold of being cheaper to use than existing installations of fossil fuel. Since nuclear tends to be more expensive than even fossil fuel electrical generation, why would anyone want to build new ones. Every current nuclear project in the US is well behind schedule and well above cost. The three new installations in the EU are horribly so. Funny that nuclear advocates point to France who has something like 80% of their electricity generated by nuclear. It is the French who are designing and putting in these new facilities that are going so horribly wrong.

It's not done because it's cheaper to shove spent fuel into a 'dry' cask than it is to process it. That doesn't mean reprocessing isn't an economic option if you need longer term storage than a dry cask can offer.

And 'dry' refers to the fact it no longer needs active cooling in a spent fuel pool. As I mentioned the ideal solution would be to encase the fuel in glass. Glass doesn't corrode. And dry cask storage is layered. It's designed to be flooded. Be a pretty terrible outdoor storage solution if it wasn't. There wouldn't be any real risk to dumping them into a trench.

 

[Fredneck]

It's not done because it's cheaper to shove spent fuel into a 'dry' cask than it is to process it. That doesn't mean reprocessing isn't an economic option if you need longer term storage than a dry cask can offer.

There is nothing to suggest reprocessing is an economic option. Reprocessing is used to extract plutonium which is used in nuclear weapons. In that process the cost is secondary.

And 'dry' refers to the fact it no longer needs active cooling in a spent fuel pool. As I mentioned the ideal solution would be to encase the fuel in glass. Glass doesn't corrode. And dry cask storage is layered. It's designed to be flooded. Be a pretty terrible outdoor storage solution if it wasn't. There wouldn't be any real risk to dumping them into a trench.

Dry casks aren't rated for ocean use. "dry cask storage is designed as an interim safer solution than spent fuel pool storage". Suggesting that they can be used for ocean deposits is not based on facts. As I've already mentioned, the ocean is one of the most corrosive environments on earth.

Vitrifying nuclear waste is currently being studied. It's not a "solution", it can be part of a solution. What did you read that makes you think there are simple solutions to disposal of nuclear waste?

 

[nwdiver]

Dry casks aren't rated for ocean use.

It's steel encased in concrete. They would do fine... but hence the glass emulsion I linked to.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

Your reasoning is far from sound. If it were economical to separate the highly radioactive material from radioactive waste we would be doing that......

Why? Sorry, but you’re absolutely wrong on that. However, I agree with the rest of your post.

Actually, it’s pretty easy to separate. It’s chemistry, not rocket science like landing three reusable rockets simultaneously. The problem is human perception. Example: An engineer friend worked on food irradiation projects, took some gamma irradiated apples to a scientific conference, and offered them free to anyone (just like the typical freebies if you’ve been to any conferences). NOT A SINGLE PERSON took one, and these are scientifically knowledgeable people. FYI, gamma irradiation is like shining high energy light on them, it doesn’t leave radioactive materials.

Another example, almost all spices and fast food meats have been irradiated, but don’t require labeling. Grocery foods do require labeling, hence are not irradiated. Offer anything side-by-side and humans will revolt against the thing associated with nuclear. Heck, the medical community irradiates us 10x-100x that of the nuclear community. Ever heard of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance? Well, the medical community removed nuclear and made it MRI, but it’s the same thing (no, it’s not radioactive but instead spin resonance of a nucleus).

Hanford radioactive waste is mostly salts that could easily be separated, purified, and released as non-radioactive fertilizer (except human perception won’t allow it). Furthermore, there are tons of precious metals in that waste like silver, gold, palladium, platinum, rhodium, etc. that if sold, could pay for most of the costs. I’ve talked to people who are afraid to live in the Hanford area because of all that radiation, yet people living in Spokane WA receive MORE natural radiation (~800 mREM) than the typical radiation worker at Hanford (350 natural + work exposure). We live on sand/gravel and Spokane has higher uranium soils.

Human irrationalism is everywhere, but is very strong with nuclear waste.

 

[nwdiver]

Human irrationalism is everywhere, but is very strong with nuclear waste.

When I worked at a Uranium Enrichment plant I would set off the contamination alarms a few times a week. ~95% of the time it was something I tracked IN. Contamination is everywhere... and natural.

 

[CSFTN]

Why? Sorry, but you’re absolutely wrong on that. However, I agree with the rest of your post.

Actually, it’s pretty easy to separate. It’s chemistry, not rocket science like landing three reusable rockets simultaneously. The problem is human perception. Example: An engineer friend worked on food irradiation projects, took some gamma irradiated apples to a scientific conference, and offered them free to anyone (just like the typical freebies if you’ve been to any conferences). NOT A SINGLE PERSON took one, and these are scientifically knowledgeable people. FYI, gamma irradiation is like shining high energy light on them, it doesn’t leave radioactive materials.

Another example, almost all spices and fast food meats have been irradiated, but don’t require labeling. Grocery foods do require labeling, hence are not irradiated. Offer anything side-by-side and humans will revolt against the thing associated with nuclear. Heck, the medical community irradiates us 10x-100x that of the nuclear community. Ever heard of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance? Well, the medical community removed nuclear and made it MRI, but it’s the same thing (no, it’s not radioactive but instead spin resonance of a nucleus).

Hanford radioactive waste is mostly salts that could easily be separated, purified, and released as non-radioactive fertilizer (except human perception won’t allow it). Furthermore, there are tons of precious metals in that waste like silver, gold, palladium, platinum, rhodium, etc. that if sold, could pay for most of the costs. I’ve talked to people who are afraid to live in the Hanford area because of all that radiation, yet people living in Spokane WA receive MORE natural radiation (~800 mREM) than the typical radiation worker at Hanford (350 natural + work exposure). We live on sand/gravel and Spokane has higher uranium soils.

Human irrationalism is everywhere, but is very strong with nuclear waste.

Sorry to disagree on your MRI detail - I have no knowledge to chime in on the rest. MRI is in fact based upon NMR (its a subset, really). MRI uses absolutely no ionizing radiation, which is the dangerous stuff. MRI works by using a magnetic field to decrease the randomness of atomic spin, and then FM radio to increase the energy of certain specific electrons, which jump to a different orbit, and then subsequently fall back to their initial orbit, releasing the higher energy needed for the 2nd orbit as an echo of and also in the FM radio band. The change in frequency and the time to echo can be measured, and from this information about the conditions surrounding the electrons can be gathered. No ionizing radiation, not in any way bad for anything.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

Sorry to disagree on your MRI detail - I have no knowledge to chime in on the rest. MRI is in fact based upon NMR (its a subset, really). MRI uses absolutely no ionizing radiation, which is the dangerous stuff. MRI works by using a magnetic field to decrease the randomness of atomic spin, and then FM radio to increase the energy of certain specific electrons, which jump to a different orbit, and then subsequently fall back to their initial orbit, releasing the higher energy needed for the 2nd orbit as an echo of and also in the FM radio band. The change in frequency and the time to echo can be measured, and from this information about the conditions surrounding the electrons can be gathered. No ionizing radiation, not in any way bad for anything.

Yes, I’m very familiar with NMR, I worked on a Varian T60 in school. I was just trying to say the that the term nuclear was removed, without all the technical stuff that you so eloquently supplied.

 

[iPlug]

Nuclear medicine tests such as Myocardial Perfusion Imaging (cardiac stress testing) are commonly performed; less commonly are PET scans. Both are performed with injecting radioactive tracers intravenously which release ionizing radiation.

The average U.S. resident receives ~3 mSv annual radiation exposure from natural sources.

Effects of Radiation Exposure From Cardiac Imaging: How Good Are the Data?

 

[mspohr]

Coal power becoming 'uninsurable' as firms refuse cover

Coal power becoming 'uninsurable' as firms refuse cover

The number of insurers withdrawing cover for coal projects more than doubled this year and for the first time US companies have taken action, leaving Lloyd’s of London and Asian insurers as the “last resort” for fossil fuels, according to a new report.

The report, which rates the world’s 35 biggest insurers on their actions on fossil fuels, declares that coal – the biggest single contributor to climate change – “is on the way to becoming uninsurable” as most coal projects cannot be financed, built or operated without insurance.

"Together with Asian insurers, the Lloyd’s market is becoming the ‘lender of last resort’ for a dying and destructive industry.”

 

[Fredneck]

It's steel encased in concrete. They would do fine... but hence the glass emulsion I linked to.

I don't understand why you think your opinion is a valid certification. Both steel and concrete deteriorate in the ocean. Steel will corrode in a few decades and concrete will degrade a bit slower.

You just need to do some reading on the matter, so no need for me to continue explain this to you item by item... especially when you keep repeating the same, wrong information.

Do some reading!

 

[Fredneck]

Why? Sorry, but you’re absolutely wrong on that. However, I agree with the rest of your post.

Actually, it’s pretty easy to separate. It’s chemistry, not rocket science like landing three reusable rockets simultaneously. The problem is human perception. Example: An engineer friend worked on food irradiation projects, took some gamma irradiated apples to a scientific conference, and offered them free to anyone (just like the typical freebies if you’ve been to any conferences). NOT A SINGLE PERSON took one, and these are scientifically knowledgeable people. FYI, gamma irradiation is like shining high energy light on them, it doesn’t leave radioactive materials.

Another example, almost all spices and fast food meats have been irradiated, but don’t require labeling. Grocery foods do require labeling, hence are not irradiated. Offer anything side-by-side and humans will revolt against the thing associated with nuclear. Heck, the medical community irradiates us 10x-100x that of the nuclear community. Ever heard of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance? Well, the medical community removed nuclear and made it MRI, but it’s the same thing (no, it’s not radioactive but instead spin resonance of a nucleus).

Hanford radioactive waste is mostly salts that could easily be separated, purified, and released as non-radioactive fertilizer (except human perception won’t allow it). Furthermore, there are tons of precious metals in that waste like silver, gold, palladium, platinum, rhodium, etc. that if sold, could pay for most of the costs. I’ve talked to people who are afraid to live in the Hanford area because of all that radiation, yet people living in Spokane WA receive MORE natural radiation (~800 mREM) than the typical radiation worker at Hanford (350 natural + work exposure). We live on sand/gravel and Spokane has higher uranium soils.

Human irrationalism is everywhere, but is very strong with nuclear waste.

Your entire post was actually off topic in an attempt to justify your labeling of my statement as an irrational response. You did all that rather than show us any data that explains why such an apparently useful technique is not used.

As I said, if it were easy and cheap, why would they not be using it?

 

[SageBrush]

I don't understand why you think your opinion

Hmmm ... who should I listen to, a nuclear engineer, or you ?

 

[Fredneck]

Sorry to disagree on your MRI detail - I have no knowledge to chime in on the rest. MRI is in fact based upon NMR (its a subset, really). MRI uses absolutely no ionizing radiation, which is the dangerous stuff. MRI works by using a magnetic field to decrease the randomness of atomic spin, and then FM radio to increase the energy of certain specific electrons, which jump to a different orbit, and then subsequently fall back to their initial orbit, releasing the higher energy needed for the 2nd orbit as an echo of and also in the FM radio band. The change in frequency and the time to echo can be measured, and from this information about the conditions surrounding the electrons can be gathered. No ionizing radiation, not in any way bad for anything.

It's not exactly different electron orbitals. It is the spin being flipped. In the presence of the magnetic field the spin states have different energies. Uncoupled electrons can normally be in either state, but with the applied field they will mostly be in the lower energy state. The RF energy is pumped in and the unpaired electrons flip to the higher energy state. The RF pulse ends and the unpaired electrons drop to the lower energy state releasing their RF energy which is detected.

In chemistry the NMR device scans the RF frequency to detect the exact energy level difference of the unpaired electron spin states. This energy level is modified by the local magnetic field caused by the nearby atoms which is determined largely by the molecular structure. Scanning the RF frequency allows molecular fingerprints to be measured.

MRI is used with a specific energy level to allow mapping of the density of a feature in the body. I've never met anyone who could explain to me how the images are formed. The only thing I can think is they can localize the site of the RF energy to a very small spot, in essence a voxel (a 3D pixel).

I know how CAT scans create images, I used to build the computational units that did the math. Anyone here knowledgeable about MRI?

 

[Fredneck]

Hmmm ... who should I listen to, a nuclear engineer, or you ?

Which nuclear engineer are you citing? How do you know what my credentials are?

 

[SageBrush]

How do you know what my credentials are?

What are your credentials relevant to nuclear engineering, Fredneck ?

 

[nwdiver]

I don't understand why you think your opinion is a valid certification. Both steel and concrete deteriorate in the ocean. Steel will corrode in a few decades and concrete will degrade a bit slower.

You just need to do some reading on the matter, so no need for me to continue explain this to you item by item... especially when you keep repeating the same, wrong information.

Do some reading!

.... hence the glass I linked to....

 

[TheTalkingMule]

A) We're gonna rocket this *sugar* to the Sun on sustainably fueled SpaceX vehicles.

B) We're going to have so much wind and solar installed over the next 15 years that we won't need another reactor for 20 when all the gas plants start wearing out.

 

[nwdiver]

A) We're gonna rocket this *sugar* to the Sun on sustainably fueled SpaceX vehicles.

B) We're going to have so much wind and solar installed over the next 15 years that we won't need another reactor for 20 when all the gas plants start wearing out.

Definitely for B... but definitely not for A. Even if only 0.01% of rockets fail on the pad that's gonna be a BIG mess to clean up. Burying it or dumping it in the ocean is cheaper and safer.

 

[mspohr]

A) We're gonna rocket this *sugar* to the Sun on sustainably fueled SpaceX vehicles.

B) We're going to have so much wind and solar installed over the next 15 years that we won't need another reactor for 20 when all the gas plants start wearing out.

Don't need coal and gas plants to "wear out". Renewables are already cheaper than running coal and gas plants. They are stranded assets.

 

[ReddyLeaf]

Your entire post was actually off topic in an attempt to justify your labeling of my statement as an irrational response. You did all that rather than show us any data that explains why such an apparently useful technique is not used.

As I said, if it were easy and cheap, why would they not be using it?

It's not exactly different electron orbitals. It is the spin being flipped. In the presence of the magnetic field the spin states have different energies. Uncoupled electrons can normally be in either state, but with the applied field they will mostly be in the lower energy state. The RF energy is pumped in and the unpaired electrons flip to the higher energy state. The RF pulse ends and the unpaired electrons drop to the lower energy state releasing their RF energy which is detected.

In chemistry the NMR device scans the RF frequency to detect the exact energy level difference of the unpaired electron spin states. This energy level is modified by the local magnetic field caused by the nearby atoms which is determined largely by the molecular structure. Scanning the RF frequency allows molecular fingerprints to be measured.

MRI is used with a specific energy level to allow mapping of the density of a feature in the body. I've never met anyone who could explain to me how the images are formed. The only thing I can think is they can localize the site of the RF energy to a very small spot, in essence a voxel (a 3D pixel).

I know how CAT scans create images, I used to build the computational units that did the math. Anyone here knowledgeable about MRI?

wow, and you said my post was off-topic.
Topic: Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

Please explain, with linked references from 47 international experts, how nuclear spin resonance is on the topic of coal, nuclear, and oil powered energy falling out of use.

In summary, my point was that human misperception of nuclear power is the reason for its failures. This goes back to Three Mile Island (Wikipedia), through a long glorious history of failures up to today’s incompetent nuclear construction industry (More Delays Likely for Vogtle Nuclear Plant, Georgia Regulator Says). Sorry, if you think that’s off topic.