Nuclear waste: Is it really waste?

[One of Many]

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

[Madclicker]

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?

[ynneb]

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.

[epineh]

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.

[NinerSevenTango]

The answer is here:
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/Fron...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--

[One of Many]

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?

DC

[thkoutsidthebox]

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! ) 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!

[Geof]

..But, if you sprinkle that dust out over a large area (I know, nasty idea! ) 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.

[JDenyer232]

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.

[thkoutsidthebox]

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?

[JDenyer232]

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

[fizzissist]

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.