Hey, I just saw, not too long ago, some kind of new
process involving lasers that is supposed to eliminate
the waste from the old reactor rods. I think I saw it
in Popular Science. I'll see if I can find it again.
--- Josh Battles <jbattles@bankfinancial.com> wrote:
>
> ""Mr. Plow"" <adam_is_mr_plow@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> >
> > The radiactive waste from a nuke plant has a
> half-life of like 10,000
> years,
> > that means we have to store it for a damn long
> time before it's no longer
> > dangerous to humans/plants/animals/water supply
> etc. etc. etc.
> > They do have various theories as to where/how to
> dump this stuff in a
> > "secure" locale, but that all hinges on not having
> an earthquake in that
> > particular area. I currently don't know where
> they store nuclear waste,
> > other than the retaining ponds within the plant.
> >
> > The Adam Blaster
> > Two words, figure it out.....
>
> At this point in time, you are correct Adam.
> However, there was a
> technology developed by the US government called IFR
> (Intergal Fast Reactor)
> that created short lived waste, with a hazardous
> lifespan of only about 200
> years. (the project has since been killed and
> decommissioned though,
> because people were afraid of it)
>
> Today's reactors are using fuel rods composed of a
> ceramic material that
> cannot be recycled, so when there isn't enough
> plutonium left in them to be
> fissionable at the rate desired they are removed and
> then stored. With the
> IFR, the fuel rods are made of metal, so that when
> the plutonium levels
> become too low, they are removed and melted down. A
> cadmium cathode is used
> to draw all of the still fissionable material out of
> the "junk" and it is
> then combined with new, fresh uranium so that it can
> be fissioned again,
> until all of it has been used up. This "junk" that
> is the byproduct of the
> reaction is fairly radioactive, but since it is not
> able to fission anymore,
> it's radioactivity is relatively short lived, only
> about 200 years, and then
> you could pick it up and hold it in your hands -
> without protective gear.
>
> If this type of technology were to be further
> developed, we might be able to
> use it on a national (maybe even international)
> level and reduce the amount
> of long lived nuclear byproducts. As I said before
> people are afraid of
> nuclear energy and because of the fear, this will
> probably not happen in the
> near future.
>
> --
> - Josh
> Lowered 2000 Dakota CC 3.9L
> www.geocities.com/lenny187/dakota.html
> www.omg-stfu.com
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 01 2004 - 00:15:16 EDT