Nuclear Waste Recycling Vid

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 8
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
This is excellent coverage of recycling radio-active waste issues. France is of course the leader, then Russia { much lower amount recycled } and India does about same amount as Russia. China is just beginning but has plans for more.

Currently it is far cheaper to just mine more Uranium ---get U-235--- and store the waste as is. The recycling process -----very expensive---  divides potential usable waste into  three catagories:

1} uranium,

2} plutonium --think nuclear bombs---

3} the currently non-reusable Fission By-Products { FBP's }

So this vid is a ladys visit to France and description of the whole process, after her several years of covering waste issues.  She is mind blown, as anyone would be at the level technology France is using to do all of this.

So France re-use uses most of the recycling waste potential in their nuclea power plants, tho they also sell to Netherlands, Japan and couple of others.

Japan has been working a building a reprocessing plant for over 40 years and it is not clear when they will finish it.
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,638
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@ebuc
plutonium --think nuclear bombs
I like thinking about nuclear bombs.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc
Unlike nuclear fission—the nuclear reaction that is currently used in the energy sector—fusion does not create radioactive waste. It produces three to four times more energy than fission and does not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unlike burning fossil fuels. That is why China is working to build fusion reactors.
In 2023, China’s fusion testing facility set a world record for the longest run time for a magnetic confinement fusion device, a crucial step toward operation maintenance. It plans to construct a nuclear fusion reactor independently as a demo project and aims to commercialize nuclear fusion on a large scale by 2050.
Swagnarok
Swagnarok's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 1,250
3
2
6
Swagnarok's avatar
Swagnarok
3
2
6
From what I've heard, a lot of "nuclear waste" isn't nuclear material at all, but rather miscellaneous items (such as clothing) that become radioactive through exposure to nuclear material.
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@FLRW
Oh great, you just had to go and get me started on fusion asan energy source.  Theoretically, coolbeans, practically speaking, it isn’t happening.

Unlike nuclear fission—the nuclear reaction that iscurrently used in the energy sector—fusion does not create radioactive waste.
Yeah, except for all that radioactive waste that is produced in the process. 

A fusion reactor doesn’t generate electricity, the energy produced is inthe form of very high energy Neutron streams and guess what happens when you convert Neutronstreams into electricity, you get more radioactive waste than you get from afission reactor. 

Another byproduct is weaponsgrade Plutonium 239, a lot of it, so you can kiss any nuclear nonproliferation effortsgoodbye, fusion reactors will always be producing weapons grade plutonium in largequantities.  

Fusion is only commercially viable if the fuel used is tritium,and that isn’t naturally occurring, the only place to get it is from a fissionreactor, so fusion can never be instead of fission, to make fusion viable wewill need to continue with fission.

It produces three to four times more energy than fission anddoes not release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unlike burning fossilfuels. That is why China is working to build fusion reactors.
The vast majority of the energy a fusion reactor produces needsto go back into the system, there is always a huge "parasitic power consumption", so it consumes about 80% of the energy produced at best, and it goes up as you scale, in the end it’sabout as efficient as fission, which it needs to supply the tritium, so it doesn't solve the problems of fission, it perpetuates them and generates a host of new problems to go with them.

Also, to kick start the fusion process you have to get the temperatureto about a hundred million degrees, that's six times as hot as the sun’s surface (we don't have the pressure the sun does so we need to get it much hotter to make it work). In the end, it takesmore energy to start the fusion process than it produces, and once started, thecontainment will probably take more energy than what is produced too.  It takes a boatload more energy to get the requisite containment than what is produced by the reaction today, and I suspect it always will.  

Also, when you produce high energy neutron streams theentire plant is bombarded with much higher neutron energies than what happens in a fissionplant, and that knocks atoms out of position in the metals used, so the metal fatigues and becomes brittle, the entire plant degrades structurally pretty quickly which increases chances of an accident, and even if you are lucky enough to be accidentfree, you have to replace the very expensive components of the plant regularly,which probably costs more than the energy the plant produces.

In 2023, China’s fusion testing facilityset a world record for the longest run time for a magnetic confinement fusiondevice, a crucial step toward operation maintenance.
Ah yes, 403 seconds, the "world record" is less than sevenminutes.  That containment needs to be continuous,so seven minutes needs to grow to 24/7 or we are screwed.

It plans to construct a nuclear fusion reactor independentlyas a demo project and aims to commercialize nuclear fusion on a large scale by2050.
Never gonna happen by 2050, they won’t get any net energy,all they will get is enough plutonium 239 to blow the world to smithereens a couple hundredtimes, let the conspiracy theorists run with that fact and let’s see what kind of predictions we get.

The Sun is very efficient at using fusion toproduce energy, but the incredible pressure and high temperatures needed occur naturally, wedon’t have that here, and the high cost of producing the environment necessary for fusion makes itcommercially unviable.  Everybody wants to believe we can overcome these problemswith science, but it’s more practical to just believe other clean energy sources aremore viable. 

Making fusion is like making diamonds, we can do it, but it costs about a hundred times more to do it than the resulting diamond is worth.

There are viable alternatives, wind, solar, geothermal, biochemical, and some shit we haven't even thought of yet, there are a lot of clean energyoptions we need to be putting our efforts into besides fusion. 


Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@ebuc
The best solution for the US is to store our nuclear waste in New Jersey and Mar-a-Lago.


Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,638
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sidewalker
The vast majority of the energy a fusion reactor produces needsto go back into the system, there is always a huge "parasitic power consumption", so it consumes about 80% of the energy produced at best, and it goes up as you scale, in the end it’sabout as efficient as fission, which it needs to supply the tritium, so it doesn't solve the problems of fission, it perpetuates them and generates a host of new problems to go with them.

Also, to kick start the fusion process you have to get the temperatureto about a hundred million degrees, that's six times as hot as the sun’s surface (we don't have the pressure the sun does so we need to get it much hotter to make it work). In the end, it takesmore energy to start the fusion process than it produces, and once started, thecontainment will probably take more energy than what is produced too.  It takes a boatload more energy to get the requisite containment than what is produced by the reaction today, and I suspect it always will. 

Also, when you produce high energy neutron streams theentire plant is bombarded with much higher neutron energies than what happens in a fissionplant, and that knocks atoms out of position in the metals used, so the metal fatigues and becomes brittle, the entire plant degrades structurally pretty quickly which increases chances of an accident, and even if you are lucky enough to be accidentfree, you have to replace the very expensive components of the plant regularly,which probably costs more than the energy the plant produces
Your knowledge on this is amazing.

But if what you say is true, then is China building fusion just to get plutonium?

I dont understand why would they build it otherwise, if its so ineffective at producing electrical energy?
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Best.Korea
But if what you say is true, then is China building fusion just to get plutonium?
That's what the conspiracy theorists will say, but I think they are working on it for the same reasons other countries are working on it, they think they can overcome the obstacles and make it work.  I don't, but I'm in the minority in thinking it will never work out, but then again, it's pretty common that I'm right and everyone else is wrong.  I'm a legend in my own mind you know.

I dont understand why would they build it otherwise, if its so ineffective at producing electrical energy?
They want to build it for the same reason a dog licks his own balls, because they can....at least they think they can.