seangly kheang

This conversation is closed.

Is there any environmentally friendly way to keep the waste of nuclear power?

It seems like nuclear power plant is the only option we can secure the consumption of energy especially in the developed countries. There is a consensus that energy's waste is the problem as well the pollution it produces. However, without this source of energy it seems to find other options to get the energy though we have non-renewable energy options but very limited.
Thus, the concern is the waste of nuclear.

  • thumb
    Feb 25 2013: No.
  • Feb 28 2013: I heard the French have done this, but they want a lot of money for the use of that technology.

    Nuclear does seem the worst route to take; especially post-meltdown.
  • thumb
    Feb 27 2013: A very admirable question. We must care for the planet. It's the only one we've got.
    • thumb
      Feb 27 2013: Of course, we must. We are living under a single roof which is the Earth.
      The negative effect of the nuclear waste is terribly enormous to the lives on the earth.
    • thumb
      Feb 27 2013: The Japanese already have designs for mobile floating reactors that can be towed by a tug to where they are needed. They can also be moved overland to more permanent installations. You can substitute one of these for the coal furnace in an existing power plant. The big advantage being it is sealed so there is no radiation. Only the steam circuit needs to be attached.
  • Feb 27 2013: No.

    The only "safe" place to keep the waste is inside the sun. Transporting it there would not be safe.
    • thumb
      Feb 27 2013: If they go at night it will be OK.
  • Feb 25 2013: Yes. Keep refining our reactors until we can suck every erg of energy out of the radioactive material and there is nothing left but inert material.
    • Feb 26 2013: ??? enriched Uranium or plutonium takes thousands if nto millions of years to get rid of radioactivity, you cannot "suck" every energy, actually radioactive energy is not "converted" into electricity or useful energy, radioactivity is the vehicle by which the plant converts , a nuclear plant is simply a steam engine, not a converter of radiation into electricity, although photovoltaic panels do convert some type of radiation (UV) ito electrical current and some recent studies on nanotubes (carbon) are being developed to do so, hence no there is no way to suck radioactive energy out of the nuclear waste, that s why we are burying it for thousands of years in the middle of our deserts.
      • Feb 26 2013: Yes, if you look at it in a straight line.
        By reactor design I am implying new (or rather old) reactor designs like the Molten salt reactor (I read about these in New Scientist in 1970) which can use spent fuel rods as load fuel and reduce the radioactivity of the "ash" to 300 years.
        I would expect that subsequent reactor design and/or reprocessing options would extend this and reduce the radioactive byproducts even further.
      • thumb
        Feb 27 2013: In a uranium or plutonium reactor the vast majority (95%) of the nuclear waste is actually un-used fuel. Once you have reacted 10-15% of the uranium in the rods the waste products get in the way of further reactions. Liquid phase reactors allow total use of the fuel down to stable (non-radioactive) nuclei. The vast majority of nuclear waste that now exists can be re-processed this way. If we started building LFTR reactors now, fifty years from now there will only be a tiny fraction of the waste we are now storing.
        • thumb
          Feb 27 2013: I appreciate your optimism. And I applaud the developement of a clean reactor. In that the cost per reactor is immense, all they need to do to take over and expand the world market is produce a much cheaper reactor. The added safety factors will make it the standard.
          I wonder what a portable one could do?
  • thumb
    Feb 25 2013: .
    It is almost impossible due to human ultra-high accuracy.
  • thumb
    Feb 24 2013: Once they start using LFTR reactors the spent fuel rods can be used as liquid phase fuel and eliminated.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • 0
    Feb 24 2013: Yup - waste is the concern. I understand that some people are working on finding bacteria or simple organisms who will eat the radiation, but that doesn't sound too promising to me. They would have to eat the rods and die without becoming radioactive. As I recall, the half-life of the rods is 25,000 years. That's only the half-life. There are reasonable estimates that offer the term "millions of years" before the material is again safe to be around living things. Think about what has happened in the last few million years and see if you can think of a way to protect living things from it.

    But then, people are really ingenious, so --- who knows?
    • thumb
      Feb 24 2013: That is interesting to learn that solution is being tested on the way. However, it perhaps requires times to get confirm whether it is useful and harmless.

      To me, I feel like people are solving the immediate problem/issue and the side effects of the implementing solution seems not wisely predictable. I agree in some ways that people are so clear and powerful with creative ideas and solutions, but still struggle with unpredicted side effects or natural disasters.

      Do you think people are more superior than nature?