100 Years of Waste
Jackson FREE PRESS by Greg Williamson
March 12, 2008 - “…………………..Entergy wants to reduce its investment risk. Despite the tremendous demand for electricity in the United States, a nuclear power plant is a dicey investment.That is why so few plants have been built in the last 20 years. Part of the danger is public aversion to nuclear power, which can slow the building process. Another serious financial hazard is the significantly long-term commitment of waste, which the plant typically stores on-site indefinitely. To add to the problem, at the end of a nuclear power plant’s life, the nuclear reactor itself becomes waste and must either be dismantled and removed to a long-term storage facility or entombed in concrete. The Nuclear Regulatory Agency requires Entergy or any nuclear utility to set aside at least another $300 million for that eventuality and allows up to 60 years to complete the task.
But where does the waste go, and how will it get there? The United States built a long-term repository for high-level radioactive waste in Yucca Mountain, Nev., but the good people of Nevada don’t want it, and who can blame them? It is also a bit of a logistical and public relations nightmare to transport the waste. How are we going to move tons of high-level nuclear waste through the country? Secretly?
Yes, probably, if at all, because of the threat of terrorism and public protest from people who will not want it going through their town.
So, where is the spent nuclear fuel from all those nuclear power plants in the United States and the one current Mississippi plant going now? Absolutely nowhere. As standard practice, it is stored on-site. Virtually every nuclear plant is also, for practical reasons, a nuclear waste storage facility. Spent nuclear fuel rods are too radioactive to be safely moved for at least six months after they are removed from the reactor ……………………….So, what Entergy wants, in essence, is a down payment for a very long-term relationship with nuclear power and nuclear waste that will extend actively at least 100 years into the future…………………………………………..”
The Problem Of Atomic Waste Dealing with the long lived reactor-produced radioactive wastes MOTHER EARTH NEWS .by ANNE AND PAUL EHRLICH 22 Feb 08 – “……………………..What can be done with the remaining long-lived wastes . . . those that will continue to be deadly for 1,000 to 500,000 years? In theory, these reactor by-products can be shipped to a ‘reprocessing plant’ . If the wastes have been held at the power plant for 150 days, they will only contain about three percent of the radioactivity that they had when they were removed from the reactor. But, though this figure may sound small, these elements are still emitting an abundance of lethal radiation.
Furthermore, the heat generated by continuing radioactive decay is so intense that the used fuel rods would melt if they weren’t constantly cooled during shipment. Therefore, any shipment must take place in heavily shielded, cooled casks which can weigh from 35 to 100 metric tons … depending upon whether they’re to be shipped by road or rail.
…………………………….What happens then? Well, first of all, the fuel rods are chopped up by automated equipment and dissolved in acid so that the various elements can be separated chemically. Now unfortunately, current reprocessing-plant design allows some gaseous radioactive isotopes to be routinely released from the plants into the atmosphere. In fact, it is here that the largest routine releases designed into the nuclear fuel cycle occur, and these add a small fraction of natural radiation to the burden of ionizing radiation that humanity must already bear.
But all is not pure waste.Plutonium 239 and uranium 25-both fissile and thus usable as reactor fuel-can be recovered at the reprocessing plant and shipped back to be recycled through the power plant. The rest of the high-level wastes become concentrated into a highly radioactive liquid … about 10,000 gallons of it per power reactor per year.
You will note that we said above that “in theory” this reprocessing could occur. But there are, at present, no reprocessing plants in service in the United States! One such installation (a small capacity plant owned by Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc.) did operate from 1966 until 1971, when it was shut down for repairs and expansion……………
………In many ways, this so-called “back end” of the nuclear fuel cycle is actually the soft underbelly of the whole atomic power establishment. The shipment and especially, the reprocessing of spent fuel are hazardous and technically difficult enterprises. They must be accomplished almost entirely by automation, and the barriers
between the radioactive materials and the environment tend to be much thinner during these processes than at the power plants themselves………..
………..we don’t even know if reprocessing plants can be designed with adequate safeguards against catastrophic accidents, tornadoes, earthquakes, and sabotage. In the meantime, spent fuel elements are constantly accumulated at power plant sites, while we wait for someone to solve the problems…….….…..What then would become of the millions of gallons of highly radioactive, long-lived liquid wastes that would be generated annually?
This particular question has vexed the nuclear establishment from the start…………
…..……Like space disposal, another alternative-ocean disposal- presents known hazards, because a great deal of low-level radioactive waste-encapsulated in steel drums-has already been dumped in the oceans close to our shores. The result? Many of the containers are now leaking … and the degree to which radioactivity will be concentrated in oceanic food chains (thereby threatening humanity) is not yet known. …………………….…………..People sense that our knowledge of geology makes it difficult to guarantee the integrity of burial sites for the requisite hundreds of thousands of years … and they are rightly nervous about the possibility of accidents that may occur in the process of transport and burial. …………………….Finally, techniques must be devised to dispose of the highly radioactive remains of nuclear power plants when their 20- to 40-year service lives are over … to say nothing of the carcasses of failed reprocessing plants….”
Deadly secrets underground Thestar.com By ANGELA CHARLTON 5 Feb 08 – “If the world embraces nuclear energy, where will the deadly waste go?
THOUSANDS of canisters of highly radioactive waste from the world’s most nuclear-energised nation lie, silent and deadly, beneath a jutting tip of Normandy. Above ground at the site in Beaumont-Hague in France, cows graze and Atlantic waves crash into heather-covered hills.The spent fuel, vitrified into blocks of black glass that will remain dangerous for thousands of years, is in ‘interim storage.’ Like nearly all the world’s nuclear waste, it is still waiting for the long-term disposal solution that has eluded scientists and governments in the six decades since the atomic era began. ………………………………….recent talk of a nuclear renaissance has focused on the ‘front end,’ or reactor construction. Engineers are designing the next generation of reactors to be safer than today’s — and they’re being billed as a solution to global warming. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, blamed for heating the planet. Few people have been talking about the ‘back end’ – industry-speak for the hundreds of thousands of tons of waste that nuclear plants produce each year, and the lucrative, secretive business of storing it away. ………………Greenpeace and Norwegian environmental group Bellona say European nations have for years been illegally shipping radioactive waste to Russia and leaving it there. ……
The French fuel stays in Normandy indefinitely, while bulkier, lower-level nuclear waste is piling up in dumps worldwide………………………………….”.
Solution for deadly nuke waste eludes science
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE REVIEW By The Associated Press January 27, 2008 BEAUMONT-HAGUE, France -- “Thousands of canisters of highly radioactive waste from the world’s most nuclear-energized nation lie, silent and deadly, beneath this jutting tip of Normandy. Above ground, cows graze and Atlantic waves crash into heather-covered hills.The spent fuel, vitrified into blocks of black glass that will remain dangerous for thousands of years, is in ‘interim storage.’ Like nearly all the world’s nuclear waste, it is still waiting for the long-term disposal solution that has eluded scientists and governments in the six decades since the atomic era began.
………………………………….recent talk of a nuclear renaissance has focused on the ‘front end‘ or reactor construction. Engineers are designing the next generation of reactors to be safer than today’s — and they’re being billed as a solution to global warming. Nuclear reactors do not emit carbon dioxide, blamed for heating the planet. Few people have been talking about the ‘back end’ industry-speak for the hundreds of thousands of tons of waste that nuclear plants produce each year, and the lucrative, secretive business of storing it away.
Waste ‘is the main problem with this so-called nuclear rebirth,’ said Mycle Schneider, an independent expert who co-authored a recent study for the European Parliament casting doubt on a global nuclear resurgence.
………………………………………Greenpeace and Norwegian environmental group Bellona say European nations have for years been illegally shipping radioactive waste to Russia and leaving it there. …………………….Areva makes $2.2 billion in revenues a year on treating and recycling waste. The plant at Beaumont-Hague takes in 22,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel a year, from France, Japan, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Australia. The foreign fuel by law must be returned to its owners once it has been reprocessed into a more stable form that — through lack of alternatives — is buried or held in storage.
The French fuel stays in Normandy indefinitely, while bulkier, lower-level nuclear waste is piling up in dumps worldwide………………….”Chernobyl “sarcophagus” to be renovated” MOSCOW. RIA Novosti Tatiana Sinitsyna 17 Jan 08 – “…………………..Tens of thousands of highly-professional clean-up workers, risking their lives, built a gigantic sarcophagus in an extremely short period of time – only six months.
But there are no engineering miracles. A gain in one respect, comes with a loss in another. The remote-control methods used due to the high radiation levels could not achieve the required tightness. The total area of cracks in the shelter reached almost a thousand square meters. Every year they let in up to 2,000 cubic meters of rain and melted snow.
The moisture has steadily found its way into the structures and can spread radioactive material or in a worst-case scenario produce a runaway nuclear reaction.
Radiation also prevented a reliable check on the actual strength of the structures chosen for support. All information was supplied by pictures taken from a helicopter.
“The supporting props were a source of constant alarm: after all, they suffered from an explosion and a fire,” Prof. Borovoi said. “Should one of them shift for some reason (say, in an earthquake), the domino effect could send the rest crumbling. The result would be what foreign experts call ‘a collapse of the shelter’: the structures would cave in and release radioactive dust into the environment.” …………………………..Builders used 750 tons of metal, 245 tons of reinforced steel and falsework, and 4,500 tons of reinforced concrete for the foundation to strengthen the shelter.
GROWING NUCLEAR STOCKPILES REQUIRE NEW SECURITY MEASURES (THE STANLEY FOUNDATION)
UNITED NATIONS – / MaximsNews Network / – 31 October 2007 – “Muscatine, Iowa – Today 2,000 metric tons of separated highly enriched uranium and plutonium stockpiled in civilian and military programs pose a significant proliferation risk. These stockpiles could grow if plans for an expansion in civilian nuclear energy materialize.Since 2005, more than 20 countries that do not now have nuclear power have expressed interest in installing nuclear reactors. With more reactors, it is likely that additional uranium enrichment and possibly plutonium reprocessing plants would also be built. Current efforts to restrict the expansion of such sensitive technologies are competing with efforts to promote plutonium as an energy resource.
The systems that guard against state diversion of and terrorist access to sensitive materials that could be used in nuclear weapons are already under duress………………………..”UK lumbered with foreign nuclear waste Just as the Government was mulling a new nuclear programme, an 800 ton problem emerges THE INDEPENDENT 17 June 2007 By Tim Webb “The UK is set to become home to some 800 tons of highly radioactive nuclear waste after it emerged that the disaster-prone Thorp reprocessing plant may have to remain closed permanently. The Government has admitted that the spent nuclear fuel shipped in from overseas and currently stockpiled at Sellafield may have to remain in Britain.The revelation is a major blow to the reputation of the nuclear industry at a time when the Government is mulling whether to approve the construction of a new generation of atomic plants.The admission came as the Department of Trade and Industry prepared the ground for the permanent closure of Thorp, its controversial nuclear reprocessing plant at the sprawling nuclear complex in Cumbria.The £1.6bn plant is now largely obsolete, as reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is no longer considered viable. It has been closed since April 2005 after a major radioactive leak was discovered……….”
New threat perceptions in storing nuclear waste – EARTH Times.org Fri, 12 Jan 2007 Author : Zipporah Koganowich “LONDON: Radioactive waste kept underground in preservative coatings can destroy the coating materials earlier than previously thought and can leak out endangering safety. Scientists at Cambridge University in the U.K. and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in the U.S. have found that the synthetic material called zircon, which is used in preserving plutonium, cannot hold the material until it becomes safe.The material can break down faster than thought earlier when exposed to radiation, the scientists found in their recent research. Zircon is a durable natural chemical and mixing nuclear waste with this material is a recommended method of storing the waste safely for thousands of years.. ……..”
Tags: nuclear, nuclearwaste
Tags: wastes
