Nuclear disaster in Japan and wider Nuclear discussion

[Spare Tyre]

Radioactive water threatens Kakadu National Park, Northern Territory, Australia:


"Radioactive water is in danger of spilling into an Aboriginal community and Kakadu's World Heritage-listed wetlands if record rainfalls continue to deluge the vast Ranger uranium mine.

Mine management faces drastic action to avert an environmental disaster and avoid costly delays that could stall high-grade ore extraction for months or even years."

Read more.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The nuclear movement will survive this. The question is not whether it's perfectly safe. The question is whether in the short term the feasible alternatives are any better.

If you mean "next 30 years" by short term, then yes. If we're going to completely say "no mas" to nuclear power, then we're going to have to accept:

1. Burning more coal, and dealing with greenhouse emissions from it.
2. Using more oil, and dealing with the Middle East volatility, importing, plus emissions.
3. Drilling and mining for more natural gas, which is costly, and potentially very rough on the environment.
4. Rapidly moving on alternative and renewable energy, and dealing with a sharp price increases while we adapt.
5. Using a lot less. Less electricity, less heat, less gasoline.

I see a big fight over nuclear over the next year or so, but hopefully we can learn a lot from this disaster as I do believe we are going to move forward on it. Not just in the US, but in many countries.

Add: Duran was a hell of a lightweight. He was a pretty good welter as well. Above that, he had some up's and downs. The loss to Hearns is one of the most devastating KO's in boxing history. But yes, as a LW, maybe the best ever. Even the great Alexis Arguello quietly waited until Duran moved up in weight, before he moved up to LW.

 

[python]

1. Can someone tell me/us what the long term storage solution for this spent fuel is to eliminate or minimize the hazard?

there are hundreds of materials and thousands of pages written on the issue. in a nut shell, different countries deal with the problem differently but all solutions come to the following choices or a combination of choices:
1. long-term repository like the nevada site at yucca mnt.
2. reprocessing domestically or sending it away to the countries willing to take the risk of reprocessing
3. dry-cask starage

2. So what are other leading countries in the nuclear industry doing with their spent nuclear fuel?

again, in a nut shell because it's a complicated subject...take france, for example, an indisputable leader in nuclear power. they reprocess. that is, they recover uranium and plutonium for reuse. they also cooperate with/send to other countries.

3. Have those countries experienced any problems with their handling of spent fuel?

yes, i've heard reports of various accidents. some are said to be serious. the biggest problem though, imo, is the slowness of licensing the long-term storage facilities like yucca mnt. france has similar issues.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The biggest complaints about Yucca Mountain though don't have to do with it's security or safety. The big concern is how to safely and securely transfer all of that waste from the East Coast across the US. In theory it should work, but...

The other complaint is that the damned thing cost so much, and Nevada's senior senator (Harry Reid) is ardently against it - even though they've dug the hole and lined it and built the thing.

 

[Cobblestones]

The biggest complaints about Yucca Mountain though don't have to do with it's security or safety. The big concern is how to safely and securely transfer all of that waste from the East Coast across the US. In theory it should work, but...

The other complaint is that the damned thing cost so much, and Nevada's senior senator (Harry Reid) is ardently against it - even though they've dug the hole and lined it and built the thing.

The second paragraph is correct. As long as the senate leader is from NV, Yucca Mountain is dead.

In other words, the US has no long term storage.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

there are hundreds of materials and thousands of pages written on the issue. in a nut shell, different countries deal with the problem differently but all solutions come to the following choices or a combination of choices:
1. long-term repository like the nevada site at yucca mnt.
2. reprocessing domestically or sending it away to the countries willing to take the risk of reprocessing
3. dry-cask starage

again, in a nut shell because it's a complicated subject...take france, for example, an indisputable leader in nuclear power. they reprocess. that is, they recover uranium and plutonium for reuse. they also cooperate with/send to other countries.

yes, i've heard reports of various accidents. some are said to be serious. the biggest problem though, imo, is the slowness of licensing the long-term storage facilities like yucca mnt. france has similar issues.

The biggest complaints about Yucca Mountain though don't have to do with it's security or safety. The big concern is how to safely and securely transfer all of that waste from the East Coast across the US. In theory it should work, but...

The other complaint is that the damned thing cost so much, and Nevada's senior senator (Harry Reid) is ardently against it - even though they've dug the hole and lined it and built the thing.

Thank you Python for the condensed version.

I had thought of sending waste away to countries willing to take the risk. But then, as Alpe points out, there would be the hurdle of getting the material safely to those countries AND at the same time convincing everyone it can be done safely. I have to think a solution like yucca mtn or dry cask is the way to go. Then again, as Alpe points out, it costs so much. But then on the other hand I'd rather take the risk of transporting the material cross-country to a safer final repository than letting the spent fuel sit in pools forever, setting us up for another "Fukushima" disaster, which would cost much more to recover from... as Japan and the rest of the world is finding out.

 

[Le breton]

............

I had thought of sending waste away to countries willing to take the risk. ...........

I had thought of sending waste away to countries willing to take the risk
How disgusting can one get! I hope you are not proposing such an unethical "solution".

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Well, it is an option, but not a good one for a country as large as the USA or Russia. IMO, countries with acceptable sites that generate rad waste need to find a repository in their own country, UNLESS the generator is a small country close to or bordering another country that already has facilities to handle such waste, OR UNLESS the country does not have a safe haven for a repository. For instance, Belgium (7 nucs in operation), Netherlands (1 in operation) and Switzerland (5 in operation) might send their spent fuel to France (Nuclear power plants in Europe). I don't see anything wrong with that. I think Switzerland may have their own repository, but not sure about this.

 

[Spare Tyre]

"The operator of Japan's Fukushima nuclear plant says at least 45 tonnes of highly radioactive water has leaked from the facility, possibly into the Pacific Ocean."

Read more.