Board index › Off Topic Discussion › Random Discussion

It rained for a day and the river level is lower than before

Page 2 of 2 [ 21 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

01 May 2007, 6:56 am

Quatermass wrote:
Zombie, you just made a boo-boo. Nuclear power is fine, regarding global warming, but there is a problem with what to do with the nuclear waste afterwards. How do you suggest we deal with nuclear waste, TM1? Do you have a solution to nuclear waste? I mean to dealing with it post hoc, not ante hoc.

BTW, how long does it take to cook something with a solar cooker?


Separate the isotopes with a short half lives and store them in safer containment. The overwhelming bulk of the waste is less radioactive than the natural uranium it came from (which is spread out everywhere in low concentrations anyway).

The cheap do it yourself solar cookers are slow cookers. I would guess requiring 2-3 times the amount of time as a conventional oven. I think 250 F is the max temperature you can reach with simple designs.



Quatermass
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,779
Location: Right behind you...

01 May 2007, 7:01 am

TheMachine1 wrote:

Separate the isotopes with a short half lives and store them in safer containment. The overwhelming bulk of the waste is less radioactive than the natural uranium it came from (which is spread out everywhere in low concentrations anyway).



Define 'safe containment'. Aren't many of these substances corrosive to some degree? And, also, isotope separation. Is that possible? To the point, feasible? Both physically and financially?


_________________
(No longer a mod)

On sabbatical...


TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

01 May 2007, 7:16 am

Quatermass wrote:
TheMachine1 wrote:

Separate the isotopes with a short half lives and store them in safer containment. The overwhelming bulk of the waste is less radioactive than the natural uranium it came from (which is spread out everywhere in low concentrations anyway).



Define 'safe containment'. Aren't many of these substances corrosive to some degree? And, also, isotope separation. Is that possible? To the point, feasible? Both physically and financially?


Ion exchange resins can be used to remove highly radioactive materials like technetium*

* http://www.ornl.gov/sci/casd/csg/highlights/biquat.html

Basically the ion exchange resins just needs to be design for the target elements charge
state and size.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_exchange_resin

A common day to day use is of such resin is to remove calcium from water (water softening).



Quatermass
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 18,779
Location: Right behind you...

01 May 2007, 7:25 am

Financially, is it feasible?

What is actually wrong about using solar power? At least segueing into it? I mean, with the Outback, Australia can get a helluva lot of solar power....


_________________
(No longer a mod)

On sabbatical...


TheMachine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,011
Location: 9099 will be my last post...what the hell 9011 will be.

01 May 2007, 7:45 am

Quatermass wrote:
Financially, is it feasible?

What is actually wrong about using solar power? At least segueing into it? I mean, with the Outback, Australia can get a helluva lot of solar power....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium

Quote:
The fission of a gram of the rare isotope uranium-235 in nuclear reactors yields 27 mg of 99Tc, giving technetium a fission yield of 6.1%.[25] Other fissionable isotopes also produce similar yields of technetium.[6]

It is estimated that up to 1994, about 49,000 TBq (78 metric tons) of technetium was produced in nuclear reactors, which is by far the dominant source of terrestrial technetium.[26] However, only a fraction of the production is used commercially. As of 2005, technetium-99 is available to holders of an ORNL permit for US$83/g plus packing charges.[27]


78 MT = 78,000,000 grams x $83 =$ 6.5 billion I would estimate that would be the maxium cost to process all the annual nuclear waste. I'm assuming multistage resins to
remove all elements that pose addtional risk.

Yeah I'm very pro-solar. Its justs it needs a little more time. There are many home things people can do now that are solar that make since.

1) solar water heating is very practical in many loactions
2) line dry clothes
3) plant shade tree to reduce cooling needs