In contemplating the thought of this material and its depletion rate. This is after all, converting one form of energy into another in a controlled state.

Taking that into account along with the concept of solar energy conversion of light radiation to electricty.

For the sake of discussion. Since nulcear waste emits another type of radiation. Could it be possible that this type of radiation waste be converted into a new type of power cell, as if in a "fantasy land" envronmentally responsible way?

Imagine the possiblities if the physics were remotely realistic to overcome the impossiblities.

A power source with a 10,000 year half life is too good to be true I suppose?

DC

I think this stuff really qualifies as waste. Gotta wonder what the French are doing with it. If they can do it, surely we could figure it out?

Good question. I dont know, but are guessing the energy is low grade, meaning the temperature it gives off is not much more than global ambient temperature.
The potential difference is low, and therefore hard to harness.
I suspect the type of radiation is also hard to harness.

But I like you thinking. Lets hope it can be harnessed. It might become valuable all of a sudden.

I like your way of thinking, don't know if it can be used, but it would be nice to have a use for it other than making armour piercing ammunition.

It is always a concern though what to do with it after it is used, I for one don't accept that it can be safely stored for any extended period of time, not relative to the actual half life of the stuff, kinda like pooping (keeping this a little clean :)) in out grandkids' nest.

I cringe when they mention burying it deep in our outback, I kinda remember something about an artesian basin of water underneath the whole country, seems like an easy way to "share the toxic radiation love" to me.

Russell.

The answer is here:
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Frontiers/2003/d5ee.html

In short, the fuel can be recycled. Unfortunately, regulations and politics overrule intelligent usage. Someday it will happen, because it's the only thing that makes sense. Recycling uses the energy from the long-lasting isotopes and converts them to short-lived ones.

Spent fuel is ceramic pellets, which have to be converted to the metal before being used for ammunition. The metal, depleted uranium, is a by-product of making the fuel in the first place, and this is the source of most of the metal.

--97T--

Well, to clarify my mode of thought.

I was hoping the posed question was not too absurd, but......I was thinking more along the lines of:

This stuff is burried in "supposedly sealed containers" anyways. Maybe the storage containers that it is placed in could be lined and sectioned to give maximum surface area to something similar to solar type panels that could convert the radiation being emitted into a usable power source.

Could I be thinking years ahead of my own time?:D

DC

I have a question that probably seems kinda silly to some of you, but here we go.....

If you have a big 10ft^3 block of nuclear waste, then it has a half like of 10,000 or whatever years, fair enough.

Now, if you break up and grind that 10ft^3 block down into dust, ok you still have the same mass of waste with the same overall radioactive content.

But, if you sprinkle that dust out over a large area (I know, nasty idea! :eek:) will the radioactivity diminish quicker from each tiny particle of dust individually than from the large block.....maybe like 1000, or 100 years for each dust particle?
In the same way a large mass holds heat longer, and if you break it up more surface area is in contact with the atmosphere to result in a quicker release and 'cooling' of the heat/radioactivity.......

Any ideas?

Edit: As an aside....do the 'sealed containers' have a longer degredation period than the radioactivity? Probably not!

..But, if you sprinkle that dust out over a large area (I know, nasty idea! :eek:) will the radioactivity diminish quicker from each tiny particle of dust individually than from the large block.....maybe like 1000, or 100 years for each dust particle?...

Sorry to disappoint. No.

Half life is half life; the rate of decay depends on the particular isotope and you cannot change it.

Incidentally the decay figures always mentioned are half life which is the time required for a half a given quantity of material to decay. Then another half (a quarter of the original amount) goes during the next half life, etc, etc. So with your big block you need several half lifes to get the decaying material down to a small quantity.

Nobody knows if it is possible to make sealed containers that last longer than the long half life material. It is known that containers can be made that do not last that long.

There is a way to 'speed up' the decay and this is by Neutron irradiation, at least I think it is Neutrons but it could be another fast moving particle. The way this works is that if fast travelling Neutrons strike the unstable isotope they can transmute it into a different element with a faster decay rate. I believe it is also possible to extract heat at the same time so a double benefit is available.

The problem is as 97T points out it is all tied up in regulations; some I think related to non-proliferation. It is necessary to refine the waste and treat the separate components differently. Problem is some of the components are very useful for making big bangs and it is the fear of these getting into the wrong hands that limits the ways in which the waste can be treated.

As others have stated nuclear waste has piled up due to political constraints. Only 2% of the uranium is used in the reactor, reprocessing can be easily done but it is not allowed due to the non nuclear ploliferation agreement. There is an experimental reactor that creates more fissionable material than it uses, it's called a fast breeder reactor. The material created is plutonium that can be run in another type of reactor. We are using what is called an open loop cycle, we use it once then call it waste. If we used a closed cycle we would have enough fissionable material to last the US hundreds of years for all our electricity production and only produce small amounts of low level waster rather than a large amount of high level waste.

As others have stated nuclear waste has piled up due to political constraints. Only 2% of the uranium is used in the reactor, reprocessing can be easily done but it is not allowed due to the non nuclear ploliferation agreement. There is an experimental reactor that creates more fissionable material than it uses, it's called a fast breeder reactor. The material created is plutonium that can be run in another type of reactor. We are using what is called an open loop cycle, we use it once then call it waste. If we used a closed cycle we would have enough fissionable material to last the US hundreds of years for all our electricity production and only produce small amounts of low level waster rather than a large amount of high level waste.

Thats interesting....any more information?

Thats interesting....any more information?

Not really, just that if we closed the loop for nuclear energy we could make a lot of electricity and produce a lot less waste. Seems rather wasteful to load a reactor up with 100 pounds of uranium, use 2 pounds and throw away the rest. Uranium like any natural resource is limited, we wouldn't pump a barrell of crude out of the ground use a gallon or two and throw the rest away now would we? Of course there are the political issues and nuclear proliferation problems to contend with as reprocessing and using fast breeder reactors are ideal for making weapons grade fissionable materials. See the link below for what a fast breeder reactor is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor

I'm starting to lean toward the pebble bed reactor myself.

Meanwhile, you guys can all ship your nuke waste to Nevada, but give us title to it. :)

Sounds cool, and it's not like the people running all those reactors will make mistakes, fake safety & welding certificates or anything else that may put the public or environmet at risk is it?
Regards,
Nick (the eternal cynic)

Nick,

Safer designs have evolved, and better control systems too.

And I don't think we use stick-welded steel pipe, like in that submarine movie. There are multiple levels of fall - back security in our systems, to counteract idiot bureaucrats, idiot supervisors and idiot workmen.

So, as long as nobody spills a cup of coffee on the control panel ......

--97T--

Nick,

Safer designs have evolved, and better control systems too.

And I don't think we use stick-welded steel pipe, like in that submarine movie. There are multiple levels of fall - back security in our systems, to counteract idiot bureaucrats, idiot supervisors and idiot workmen.

So, as long as nobody spills a cup of coffee on the control panel ......

--97T--

Or lights a candle.

This is some of many articles, I found.
This was the talk some years back, I wonder if it is being done as we speak.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2002/07/radioactive_recycling.html

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/STOPradScrapRecyc.html

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/radMetalRecyc.html

http://www.cqs.com/escrap.htm

Yeah gota love that extreamly evil nuke industry. Oh well when you or one of your family gets a nice cancer just be happy.

Nick,

Safer designs have evolved, and better control systems too.

And I don't think we use stick-welded steel pipe, like in that submarine movie. There are multiple levels of fall - back security in our systems, to counteract idiot bureaucrats, idiot supervisors and idiot workmen.

So, as long as nobody spills a cup of coffee on the control panel ......

--97T--

Nice, in theory, but do you remember the Japanese sending back rods to BNFL because most of the x-ray tests had been faked?
That's what you get with people in the loop who work to incentives, systems are only as good as the people that implement them.
In my experience lots of people are not good at judgement calls when it involves money in their pocket & someone elses problem, you can tell I'm a trusting soul can't you:)
Regards,
Nick

The world is full of stupid people with no integrity. How to filter them out is a problem I don't have the answer to.

--97T--

The world is full of stupid people with no integrity. How to filter them out is a problem I don't have the answer to.

--97T--

Trouble is the world is also rich with very intelligent people with no integrity. One in particular that I used to consider a friend has proven to be one of those.

What is most troubling is that he actually believes himself to be correct in what he does, not recognizing any hypocrisy at all in his actions, much less a lack of integrity.

They become frustrated with us, because we just don't "get it".....and we are never going to change their way of thinking.

I offer as a perfect example Stephen Schneider of Stanford ( http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/ ), who admits to exaggerating claims of climate doom, because the end justifies the means. That's integrity?? Not in my book.

"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."--Stephen Schneider, 1989

Regarding posts 17,18,19.

Before we can expect much filtering out of stupid people without integrity we need to figure out how to change a corporate, political, societal culture that accepts that:

It is okay for politicians and federal agents to lie to citizens but if citiziens lie to federal agents they can be imprisoned.

It is okay for corporations to choose the lowest cost subcontractor but choose the top executive who demands the largest salary and most generous stock options.

It is okay for corporations to make a subcontractor rectify deficiencies at the expense of the subcontractor but when an exceutive screws up they are given a healthy severance package and allowed to cash in their stock options.

It is okay for consumers to demand the lowest price for goods, no matter how low the quality, but at the same time demand higher wages and then whine when manufacturing moves off shore.

Deleted after I reviewed it, too much like a rant:)

Well said, Geof.

People expect everyone else to have integrity, while clinging to their own right to intellectual dishonesty and intellectual laziness. So they can believe whatever they want to believe, even in defiance of facts, and they are not responsible for the consequences that harm others.


--97T--

Deleted after I reviewed it, too much like a rant:)

It was but I thought it was a worthwhile rant. The type of management attitude you describe is prevalent in many industries. I think the only industry where it has been reduced to manageable levels is the airline industry.

Its funny you mention the airline industry, that became a tired comparison to the nuclear industry. It was worn out on us.

While I think nuclear is safe, the waste is not and has constantly been a source of grief. It's highly radioactive and also a heavy metal poison. All kinds of nasty "stuff" produced by the fission yield curve.
Yucca Mountain? Mountains of money there is all.
It strikes me as slightly ironic before man came down from the tree, there were no transuranics (no light bulbs or toaster ovens either).
It is not an easy problem, though France seems to have done something right in that respect.

Nuclear is a part of the solution and part of the problem at the same time. Less waste in terms of cubic feet does not make it less dangerous, and the zero emission theme touted by nuclear does not quite ring true when transuranics are brought into play. It's not the end all and be all of energy sources the CEOs of the One Big Facility would have us believe.

There are many energy sources which will work in different geographical locations and it's not wise to put all eggs in the same basket as we've done in the past. I'm all for green, but if people can't enjoy it who will care? Carbon cap and trade is espoused by utilities; they will make huge sums from trade that was never invested in. Its generated out of whole cloth by our dear leaders.

Wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, water, all have some place. There is no magic bullet for the coming energy wars, and the battles are being fought on the ground in multinational boardrooms now over existing resources.

A great exothermic reaction has been taking place in D.C. for years and no work is performed as a result.
The reaction uses hunsheiss and administratum only:bs:

But the US Navy is supporting research into Cold Fusion.

LMAO, and congress still funds research in drosophila genetics, due to number and size of chromosomes. Lets hope stem cell research can grow them a spine, though they DO tend after drosohilidae.:)

I'm not saying cold fusion isn't possible or has not occurred. It's apparently hard to reproduce in any meaningful scale though. I'm not saying utilization of nuclear waste is not possible, and reutilization is to some degree, though not without another Great Big Facility. Statistics say the impossible is just improbable, like Schrodinger's Cat.

Guvmint would fund shimmy dampers for a duckwaddle to justify their budget for next fiscal year, and swear it's better than shirt pockets.
Where's my flying car and Mr. Fusion?

Skeptical? Yes. Cynic? Yes.
Wrong? I sure hope so.

You all may remember that the US built a new embassy in Russia back in the cold war days. It was so full of bugs that we had to tear it down. They found one bug with an atomic battery, about the size of a AA cell. It contained a chunk of radioactive material and a phosphorescent screen. The decaying particles hit the screen creating a glow. The glow energized a photo electric screen producing enough current to run the bug. We estimated that the battery would last for 100 years. How about that, been done years ago. I think that is what you were asking about.

Deleted after I reviewed it, too much like a rant:)

A rant perhaps, but one that I enjoyed reading!
Being fluent in 4-letter acronyms proved your credibility...:)

There's a facility at Rochester that's studying laser implosion of deuterium for power and other things. Little plastic coated pellets get zapped by about 24 lasers (I'm pretty sure they're Turbo powered lasers, and the pellets are Gourmet..)

Hitting the pellets with LostsaJoules in the ReallyFast time regime makes some interesting things happen. The nice thing is that if you don't want more power, just shut off the hopper.

note: the preceeding explanation was grossly oversimplified, and was not intended as a sales pitch, since it's a long way from practicality...

Hay fizzissist, you're talking 'bout a fusion reaction their aren't you? Haven't they been working on that one for years, extreme surface pressures, real tricky timing, clean bang? Wounder if that gizmo would be good at poppen corn?

Hay fizzissist......extreme surface pressures, real tricky timing, clean bang? Wounder if that gizmo would be good at poppen corn?

Temps up to 1,000,000,000 deg K at 10,000,00,000,000,000,000 W/cm2 at probably very helpful in popping corn, or any of its relatives pretty quick.(sorry, haven't figured out how to do the scientific notation thingy yet....but thats really the number of zeros..+/- an order of magnitude)

You can read the official promo for the National Users Laser Facility and Advanced Popcorn Study Center (NULFAPSC) here:
http://www.lle.rochester.edu/pub/documents/ext/nluf_users_guide.pdf

Figures, I was a few decades late. Or it could have been one of those subliminal memory things I may have read about years ago.......

Thanks for the refresher.

Makes one wonder if/where these types of power sources are still being used?

DC

Thanks for link to 30 pages of light reading! So with a chamber that big, temperatures that low and a vacuum that hard that sucker should be able to make a lot of really fluffy popcorn, that would also be crunchy!

So if the super symmetry theory is correct what would the particle be that corresponds to popcorn produced by the Orville RedenBlaster OMEGA laser?

Hey Digitall,
were do I find out more about that battery thingy?
Also, does anyone remember what the radio active , glow in the dark stuff was that they used to put in M16 front sights? Started with a T...
I'll say it again, gimme a 12K fuel cell that produces hot water as a by-product and I won't ask for anything else... 'cept maybe a little more shop space and, .....

Hey Digitall,
were do I find out more about that battery thingy?
Also, does anyone remember what the radio active , glow in the dark stuff was that they used to put in M16 front sights? Started with a T...
I'll say it again, gimme a 12K fuel cell that produces hot water as a by-product and I won't ask for anything else... 'cept maybe a little more shop space and, .....

Tritium vials. You can get them still.