Also, a few comments from reading this thread:
1. The most radioactive components of nuclear waste are fission products. Fission products are hundreds if not thousands of times more radioactive
than actinides, but an extremely high activity rate like this also means that they aren't radioactive for as long. Most of the contamination at
Chernobyl and Fukushima are not due to actinides (although they too are present) but due to fission products like Cesium-137. Overall fission products
are only significantly more radioactive than the ore from which the Uranium was mined for about 500 years. Containing these from spent fuel for 500
years is relatively easy.
Actinides however, typically have half lifes of several ten thousand years, but they are far less radioactive. Plutonium is an example of an Actinide.
So the waste in a thousand years will still be dangerous, but it will be hundreds or thousands of times less dangerous than it is today. Most of the
concern about storing nuclear waste relates to actinides since it will take many thousands of years for it to become as radioactive as the ore from
which the Uranium was mined.
2. Actinides could be used as fuel in fast reactors, leaving only fission products as the final waste. However, development of these are difficult and
they still need more. An example of a fast reactor concept is the IFR.
3. The notion that fossil fuels have no lasting impacts and only nuclear does is incorrect. For example, if mining for fossil fuel frees up heavy
metals, then unless there is some natural process that disperses or sequesters those heavy metals back to their original state, permanent
contamination will occur. If a species goes extinct due to fossil fuels then this is likely permanent unless we clone them. So while nuclear waste is
obviously much worse qualitatively since it is radioactive too, at least they will change into stable elements over time. This also does not include
climate impacts.
4. Nuclear reactors pose a threat, mostly because most current reactors require active cooling to keep the fuel cool. If cooling is lost for anything
other than a small amount of time, then a release will occur. In addition, all the fission products have had no time to decay - so the amount of
activity from 1 tonne of 'new' spent fuel (or fuel
in the core) will be far higher than fuel that has been sitting in a cask after being
actively cooled for several decades. Spent nuclear fuel after several decades no longer requires active cooling. On the other hand, there is also a
massive amount more of spent fuel than fuel inside reactors, so an accident involving spent fuel may involve a massive amount of material (i,e, spent
fuel pools).
5. Nuclear waste from nuclear power reactors may be able to be used to make nuclear weapons. However, the isotropic ratio of Plutonium isotopes from
waste is not ideal which means this is rarely if ever done. The only known device that used reactor grade plutonium was detonated in a test by the USA
several decades ago, and this was likely from a gas cooled reactor (which was originally designed to produce weapons grade plutonium). Unfortunately
over the time of thousands of years, the Plutonium will become purer as the unideal isotopes decay faster.
6. The release of radioactive isotopes from nuclear power stations
under normal operation into the environment is very small. The release from
some coal power stations used to be higher (the study was old, I don't know what the current situation is with improved emission control on coal power
stations).
7. Often power uprates occur because new instrumentation is more accurate, showing that power increases could occur without detriment to safety. I
don't see the problem with such uprates. Others (like those at San Onofre) point to issues with steam generator replacement and uprates.
8. I think a big point that we can take away from the study, is that renewables should primarily go into replacing fossil fuels, rather than replacing
nuclear.
9. Of course the study likely set out to prove that nuclear was far safer than fossil fuels. Unfortunately a massive amount of those both for and
against nuclear power do the same. Someone in this thread for example linked IEER.
My opinion is that nuclear power is far safer than fossil fuels right up until the point you have a Fukushima on your hands. And unfortunately, the
probability of such events are hard to predict and the consequences of such events are hard to measure. New reactors have much better protections
against these events, so I feel they are probably worth building if renewables cannot do the job.
edit on 9/4/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason
given)
edit on 9/4/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/4/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason
given)
edit on 9/4/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)
edit on 9/4/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)