It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why can't nuclear waste be recycled?

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 08:31 PM
link   
I was wondering how come nuclear waste can't be recycled for other means like fuel, or thrown back into a fusion or fission reactor of some sort to do something with it. Surely if they can synthesize uranium or turn lead into gold, they can do something about nuclear waste right? I know, turning lead into gold takes a very, very long time to do...

I have a textbook sitting here about nuclear reactors and stuff like that, just because I felt like it (it was free) but the math is beyond my comprehension so I have no idea what they are trying to say in here. So what exactly is holding us back from recycling nuclear waste?




posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 08:36 PM
link   
In short....money, people wont invest in something that doesnt return large profits.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
I think the majority of 'waste' as we hear talked about, isn't the fuel rods or nuclear weapon cores you may mean. That is reused, where possible that I understand.

A large % of waste is clothing, used building materials like cooling pipes, debris and other misc material that is hopelessly irradiated but worthless.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Em2013
 


There's quite a bit of interest in researching Thorium reactors that could use, and burn up current stockpiles of radioactive waste.

Thorium Reactor Power


Most importantly, thorium doesn't convert into plutonium—precisely the opposite, in fact. That is, the process consumes plutonium. We could be looking at a means of not only halting the growth American nuclear waste sites but actually reducing our stores of plutonium while simultaneously reducing the danger of nuclear proliferation. Sure, the thorium system does create waste of i's own, but irradiated thorium doesn't oxidize and remains more stable as it decays. What more could you want?


We don't, however, have a working efficient Thorium reactor yet. It's still a project being researched, primarily by China.


edit on 10/29/2013 by AliceBleachWhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


That is my point, its junk, its worth nothing as scrap. Most of the radioactive waste has no value so there is no incentive to invest in safer, cleaner disposal methods. Bare minimum the law requires and the people will tolerate.

The spent fuel rods are generally reused in part as weapons, and other fuels.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 08:44 PM
link   
It is recycled, in bullets.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I see, I see, very interesting you guys! I had never thought that "waste" was more than just fuel rods and dirty water. It seems that we're very far away from having a fusion system that can scan anything you throw into it, and then turn it into whatever you want it to turn into so long as it fits within the atoms you fed it. For example, if you threw in a piece of cloth that is full of radiation and some iron rods, it could convert it into let's say, steel without the nuclear radiation.

Man, the tech we could have 200 years from now seems like only a dream at this point



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Em2013
 


It is being worked on but they will not have a facility to experiment in until 2020. The tech will be invented after that. Then long after that they might start adding machines to plants to recycle some of the material. Currently not all isotopes can be recycled and by that I mean they only have theories.

myrrha.sckcen.be...

This tech will be discussed at upcoming conferences in Japan about the Fukushima disaster. There is actually a sign up sheet with agenda and everything listed on the web. I forgot where it was as it really had nothing of use that needed to be posted here.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:42 PM
link   
www.tfd.chalmers.se...


In the midst of the tritium research and Paul’s inability to buy it in the state where he worked, he accidentally stumbled upon a curious phenomenon in a nuclear handbook. As he looked down a long list of radioactive isotopes which are all made in nuclear reactors, Paul noticed that if he could remove one neutron from their nuclei, he would transmute each of them into a very-short-lived isotope. This discovery made him very excited and for the next few years, Paul started testing this theory. Not only was it true but the government apparently knew about it right after WW II. (Many scientific labs around the world subsequently confirmed the viability of the photoremediation--Hypercon process.) Why bury nuclear waste and endanger everyone nearby for thousands of years, Paul asked, when he could apply photoremediation (using low energy X-rays) and generate electricity too? As another company was formed and started to bring this invention to where Nuclear Solutions is today, Paul and his family had to survive a National Security Agency campout at their home for an extended period of time. The NSA kept threatening him and his family with "bringing in the van" if they didn't cooperate. When one young company employee asked an NSA agent what would happen if they just posted the information about nuclear waste treatment on the web in spite of any NSA controls, the agent responded, "We will kill you." (Paul's wife who was there has also confirmed this quote.) In terror, they could only imagine whether they would live through the interrogation experience or not. It was fortunate, as Paul told me later, that he made phone calls to at least one or more high level government friends, including one who had connections with the CIA. The intercession between Paul and the NSA, that was facilitated by the third party, was crucial to allowing Paul and his company to continue with their completely peaceful intention of eliminating nuclear waste.


He died. After receiving threats and this is what happens.

Apparently the PTB knew this around WW2 themselves and have been deliberately harming us, its an all out unofficial nuclear war against a large body of humanity because, we might wake up and they might lose power.
edit on 29-10-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Em2013
 


Duncan Hawthorne is the CEO of the largest nuclear power facility in North America; Bruce Power. Here's what he has to say:


Nearly half of Ontario's nuclear waste is on the Bruce Power site, and CEO Duncan Hawthorne is not entirely in favour of burying it, especially the highly radioactive fuel rods, which he believes could be recycled.
"In my entire career in the U.K. we took our fuel out of the reactor, we put it in a fuel flask and we transported it...where it got re-processed and it was a very routine matter. Frankly it’s North America that’s out of step with the rest of the world."


london.ctvnews.ca...



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
They're all lying. They are creating this problem when there is a solution, probably many by now. We have been kept in a bubble of fakeness. And everything these psychopaths say is a LIE.

The solution went the same way as another great solution.

rense.com...
A Curious Coincidence - Was
It Suppression Of The
Self-Powering Battery?

Many solutions have been found, but they don't want solutions. They want massive exploitation of life, people, nature, animals, and souls.
edit on 29-10-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Em2013
I was wondering how come nuclear waste can't be recycled for other means like fuel, or thrown back into a fusion or fission reactor of some sort to do something with it. Surely if they can synthesize uranium or turn lead into gold, they can do something about nuclear waste right? I know, turning lead into gold takes a very, very long time to do...

I have a textbook sitting here about nuclear reactors and stuff like that, just because I felt like it (it was free) but the math is beyond my comprehension so I have no idea what they are trying to say in here. So what exactly is holding us back from recycling nuclear waste?


Radioactive waste has a half-life of thousands or tens of
millions of years. That means the waste spews 'death'
in the form of gamma or neutrons. There are also
alpha particles, but a sheet of paper stops those.

A piece of radium the size of a marble can kill an
entire family.. that's one of the first stories
they tell you about in navy nuclear power school.

And even high-tensile strength casks for storing
radioactive waste only lasts hundreds of years,
while the waste spews 'death' for millions of
years.

Radioactive waste is the nastiest stuff in the
world.. the only thing worse is plutonium..
that stuff is chemically supertoxic AND
radioactive.

KPB



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Em2013
 


If you are talking spent fuel rods the answer is that it is cheaper to mine new uranium and process it into rods than it is to reprocess the spent rods. Light Water Reactors are safe and reliable but they are pretty inefficient. Only 5% of the fuel in a rod is used before it is considered spent.

If you are talking contaminated items like pipes, water, clothing, gloves ect ect the answer is that the residual energy level in that stuff is very very low. Certainly enough to ruin your day if exposed to it long term but way to low to make any useful power.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by AliceBleachWhite
 

india is also working on it.. i think this idea or technology hasnt previously been pushed by tptb because it doesnt yield plutonium that they use in weapons, but its sure time for it now.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Em2013
 


Spent Nuclear fuel is recycled in many countries, just not the US. In the UK, this what the Sellafield plant does. It reprocessed the "spent" fuel into usable fuel again, removing neutron absorbers which build up in the rods preventing a reaction taking place.

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear
 


Not all nuclear waste has such long half-lives. plutonium-238 for example only has a half life of 87 years.

Also, those with longer half-lives are actually less radioactive and therefore less dangerous, for example u-234 has a half life in the region of 1/4 million years, but only emit alpha radiation which can be easily absorbed by your underpants, keeping one's gonad's nice and safe.



posted on Oct, 29 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by KellyPrettyBear
 

Thank you, first voice of reason I heard on this one.The problem with contamination that is radioactive is it is already reduced to its smallest component… atoms and subatomic particles.

All organic or bio waste can be burned, cooked, irradiated, microwaved, whatever to reduce it from molecules to atoms and ash. Radioactive atoms are already at their base fundamental level. Unless you put them in a star and decompose the atoms to subatomic nuclei, there is no reducing radioactive elements any further.

Say you have nuclear waste as in shirts, gloves, masks, etc. If you incinerate that it is reduced to ash and smoke. The smoke from combustion is radioactive. The ashes are radioactive. Now the furnace, the smoke stack and the filters, plus the container to transport the waste to the factory in, the gloves used to clean out the ash and filters all have to be bagged and stored in a repository for nuclear waste. You just multiplied the amount of waste, not reduced it. Get the picture?

Despite the usual magic bullet theories provided by proponents of nuclear power like nonexistent Thorium reactors, reprocessing, "recycling" and such, the only thing that reduces radioactivity is decay over time.

Nuclear fuel cycle

Nothing about all these processes reduces the radioactive component. In fact, mostly it is increased.



edit on 29-10-2013 by intrptr because: additional



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 12:55 AM
link   
I just wanted to say that this thread has blown my mind. I thought it was just going to be a simple answer but this is ATS and there's a lot of fun info everywhere. You guys rock! I love the depth you guys are taking this into.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 01:15 AM
link   
Some of it is already in “recycling use” by the military industries, ever heard of the infamous “depleted uranium” munitions..?

More than 3 tons of it been released into population around the globe since Balkan wars and only god knows how many thousands of thousands tons of it are available in military storages for later use.



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Actually the US Americanos "burning" Russian Nuclear Weapons in their Reactors!

Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel


Weapons-grade uranium and plutonium surplus to military requirements in the USA and Russia is being made available for use as civil fuel.

Weapons-grade uranium is highly enriched, to over 90% U-235 (the fissile isotope). Weapons-grade plutonium has over 93% Pu-239 and can be used, like reactor-grade plutonium, in fuel for electricity production.

Highly-enriched uranium from weapons stockpiles has been displacing some 9720 tonnes of U3O8 production from mines each year, and meets about 13% of world reactor requirements through to 2013.

For more than four decades concern has centred on the possibility that uranium intended for commercial nuclear power might be diverted for use in weapons. Today, however, attention is focused on the role of military uranium as a major source of fuel for commercial nuclear power.
Since 1987 the United States and countries of the former USSR have signed a series of disarmament treaties to reduce the nuclear arsenals by about 80%.

Nuclear materials declared surplus to military requirements by the USA and Russia are now being converted into fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union a unique opportunity arose to deploy military weapons material for making electricity. A 1993 agreement covered essentially the enrichment component of this material, but left unresolved the question of feed from mines, and a 1999 agreement dealt with what happened to the feed material.
The main weapons material is highly enriched uranium (HEU), containing at least 20% uranium-235 (U-235) and usually about 90% U-235.

HEU can be blended down with uranium containing low levels of U-235 to produce low enriched uranium (LEU), typically less than 5% U-235, fuel for power reactors. It is blended with depleted uranium (mostly U-238), natural uranium (0.7% U-235), or partially-enriched uranium.

Highly-enriched uranium in US and Russian weapons and other military stockpiles amounts to about 2000 tonnes, equivalent to about twelve times annual world mine production.

World stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium are reported to be some 260 tonnes, which if used in mixed oxide fuel in conventional reactors would be equivalent to a little over one year's world uranium production. Military plutonium can blended with uranium oxide to form mixed oxide (MOX) fuel.

After LEU or MOX is burned in power reactors, the spent fuel is not suitable for weapons manufacture.


World-Nuclear Source

It is one of their Top-Arguments: "Nuclear Power Stations secure World-Peace"!



posted on Oct, 30 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Em2013
 


because it's much cheaper to dump it off the coast of Somalia and other places
and have your "friends" with the well greased palms and the guns kill and label somalis as pirates/terrorists

because it's more profitable to make munitions out of said waste [DU]
and dump it by the ton on iraq and other places.

because waste generation could have been completely avoided from the very beginning, by using thorium.
but you cant make terror weapons designed to take over the entire planet by merely threatening to use them*, from thorium, sooo...

*too bad Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Saved the World from that Fate by denying amerika a monopoly on nuclear weapons.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join