Page 7 of 7
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:25 pm
by ladajo
GIThruster wrote:I didn't answer you because you're obviously not engaged in a useful or adult manner. You know the radionuclides are in the water, not that the water is radioactive, and you know that it is much too expensive to remove them for that to be a legitimate option. The water is waste, and will remain so, and it cannot be turned into fuel. Vitrification doesn't work properly. Underground storage is a flawed solution because it is premised on the notion "out of sight is out of mind" and that is just not gonna fly. These wastes require active monitoring and given this, the reasons to put them all underground disappear.
The simple fact is, we have millions of tons of nuclear waste spread all over this country, all requiring armed guards to see it doesn't fall into the hands of islamo-fascists who would turn it into a dirty bomb or some such. You can pretend the issue is not a real one all you want--until someone describes what it would be like for a dirty bomb to go off in lower Manhattan. Then suddenly your assurances, and vacant arguments don't mean much.
Dude, you apparently know nothing of Nuclear Plant Operations and Management. I had been waiting to see what you would say. Your post is indicative of little actual knowledge on the topic at hand.
Look up "Ion Exhange".
Try these for starters.
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publicatio ... 08_scr.pdf
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/basic-ref/glossary.html#I
Purolite
Nuclear plants routinely purify circulated water.
Resin processing is a well established technical capability.
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 4:57 pm
by GIThruster
I have never claimed to have the expertise on nuclear science that others here demonstrate. Just saying, the whole notion that radioactive water waste is not waste, is on its face flat out ridiculous. Hanford alone has generated 53 million gallons of such waste and we are not purifying that water because this is not a practical solution.
You can dicker about the details all you like, but to imply or state we don't have a very serious problem with nuclear waste is just absurd and completely lacks credibility.
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:29 pm
by ladajo
Did you look at the Purolite link?
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:46 pm
by GIThruster
In glanced but it's over 100 pages. I don't understand the point. Are you implying there is a cost-effective way to purify tens of millions of gallons of contaminated water? If that's so, why hasn't it been used? And what about the billions of gallons of contaminated ground table water beneath Hanford, Oak Ridge, ______(what was the third bomb fuel manufacturer in CO? can't recall), Chernobyl, and Fukushima? Are you suggesting we have the technology to clean up those messes at an affordable price and have not?
Posted: Mon Jan 14, 2013 9:20 pm
by ladajo
Yes.
Because it is more politically useful not to.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:24 am
by palladin9479
quixote wrote:Aside from the passive safety features possible in the MSR designs, isn't one of the most attractive features that they can be used to burn transuranics and actinides produced by conventional LWRs and BRWs consequently turning a liability into an asset?
Shh don't let the anti-nuke crowd hear you say that. If they hear it they'll be screaming for blood and will do everything possible to stop MSR's from being developed. Anything that lowers the cost of nuclear power is anathema to their position. Guaranteed they'll find some way to link it to AGW.
Posted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:07 pm
by hanelyp
My understanding is that transuranics and actinides can be burned in a more conventional reactor, but the reactor really needs to be engineered for the purpose. A molten salt reactor can more easily accommodate whatever fuel you have by simply adjusting the concentration of the fuel in the salt.
I'm thinking what you really don't want the anti-nuke crowd to hear relates to other isotope production. The blanket reprocessing design intended to support thorium has potentials for other transmutations.