Right now the waste usually stays on site of the plant, but that will have to change for some plants as they run out of room.
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,854
- 4,965
- 136
Freejack2
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2000
- 7,751
- 8
- 91
And there are plenty of Oil and Coal plants that have had accidents too. We are getting pretty close to peak oil and right now we don't have enough in place to replace the energy oil has been providing us with. At the very least we need more non-oil based power plants.
shilala
Lifer
- Oct 5, 2004
- 11,437
- 1
- 76
They can build a plant in my backyard and hide the waste in my basement for all I care, as long as I can push the niteshift fitters.Originally posted by: m2kewl
they can bury the waste in my backyard. i'll take one for the team
I'll be able to retire when the job's done.
Good, because there is no reason for environmentalists to be opposed to them. It makes no sense.
You mean it is about fsking 25 years late? Damn pansies. Three Mile Island wasn't even an accident by any measureable amount yet it sent everyone into a panic over nothing. If we had been building Nuclear plants since the late 70's just think where we would be today.
middlehead
Diamond Member
- Jul 11, 2004
- 4,573
- 2
- 81
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,821
- 33,843
- 136
I think that before we return to large scale plant construction we need to get a handle on all the waste streams associated with nuclear power. The high level waste stream has been beaten to death. We also need to deal with finishing the cleanups at uranium mines and start the conversion of depleted UF6 at the enrichment plants to more stable forms. Keep in mind that approximately 60% of all the uranium that has ever been mined anywhere on earth is sitting in UF6 cylinders in the yards of US enrichment plants. Cleaning these other waste streams are not technically unachievable but addressing them takes alot of money and that will make nuclear power less attractive as an investment.
cant we jsut pay say, pakistan or india and dump it there? also what happened to yucca mountain. i heard there was a POSSIBILITY of seismic acitivity under yucca did the EPA/USNC scrap it?
personally, i prefer depleted uranium going into bullets/shells.
So
Lifer
- Jul 2, 2001
- 25,923
- 17
- 81
Hah! There are plenty of idiots in my state against it, but you fools are burying massive amounts of energy in our backyard. We need to take posession of the fuel they dump here. Once people wake up and realize that we need to reprocess the fuel, we can sell it back and make a killing. It's like middle easterners saying "hey, we have all this oil, it smells bad and is messing up our place, can we bury it in oklahoma?"
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,821
- 33,843
- 136
If we ever get into a war big enough to use up all the depleted uranium in the form of bombs and shells then waste handling will be the least of our troubles. There is just too much of the stuff for that purpose. Breeder reactors on the other hand....
K1052
Elite Member
- Aug 21, 2003
- 52,607
- 46,269
- 136
We won't even need to enrich for a few decades considering the huge excess stocks of highly enriched plutonium and U-235 already owned by the government.
Yes, dealing with the already existing uranium hexafluoride will cost but if it is spread out over many years and included in the cost of operation I don't see any huge problem.
Maybe you should try reading it, he was referring to reactor plant accidents.
1954
An experimental sodium-cooled reactor utilized aboard the USS Seawolf, the U.S.'s second nuclear submarine, was scuttled in 9,000 feet of water off the Delawre/Maryland coast. The reactor was plagued by persistent leaks in its steam system (caused by the corrosive nature of the sodium) and was later replaced with a more conventional model. The reactor is estimated to have contained 33,000 curies of radioactivity and is likely the largest single radioactive object ever dumped deliberately into the ocean. Subsequent attempts to locate the reactor proved to be futile.
Yes, this one is legetimate, but as you can read, it says experimental.
October 1959
One man was killed and another three were seriously burned in the explosion and fire of a prototype reactor for the USS Triton at the Navy's training center in West Milton, New York. The Navy stated, "The explosion...was completely unrelated to the reactor or any of its principal auxiliary systems," but sources familiar with the operation claim that the high-pressure air flask which exploded was utilized to operate a critical back-up system in the event of a reactor emergency.
This was a material failure in a high pressure air flask, and would not have in any possible way have resulted in a release of radioactivity.
1961
The USS Theodore Roosvelt was contaminated when radioactive waste from its demineralization system, blew back onton the ship after an attempt to dispose of the material at sea. This happened on other occasions as well with other ships (for example, the USS Guardfish in 1975).
Yes, this was an accidental release of contaminated material, but was not a reactor incident.
10 April 1963
The nuclear submarine Thresher imploded during a test dive east of Boston, killing all 129 men aboard.
This was due to the emergency ballast air line being too small, which froze during a test of the system. Again not in any way related to a reactor incident.
5 December 1965
This write-up is drawn from the US Nuclear Weapons Accidents page at www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm.
An A-4E Skyhawk strike aircraft carrying a nuclear weapon rolled off an elevator on the U.S. aircraft carrier Ticonderoga and fell into the sea. Because the bomb was lost at a depth of approximately 16,000 feet, Pentagon officials feared that intense water pressure could have caused the B-43 hydrogen bomb to explode. It is still unknown whether an explosion did occur. The pilot, aircraft, and weapon were lost.
The Pentagon claimed that the bomb was lost "500 miles away from land." However, it was later revealed that the aircraft and nuclear weapon sank only miles from the Japanese island chain of Ryukyu. Several factors contributed to the Pentagon's secretiveness. The USS Ticonderoga was returning from a mission off North Vietnam; confirming that the carrier had nuclear weapons aboard would document their introduction into the Vietnam War. Furthermore, Japan's anti-nuclear law prohibited the introduction of atomic weapons into its territory, and U.S. military bases in Japan are not exempt from this law. Thus, confirming that the USS Ticonderoga carried nuclear weapons would signify U.S. violation of its military agreements with Japan. The carrier was headed to Yokosuka, Japan, and disclosure of the accident in the mid-1980s caused a strain in U.S.-Japanese relations.
Its quite obvious this is not in any way related to navy reactor plants.
1968
Radioactive coolant water may have been released by the USS Swordfish, which was moored at the time in Sasebo Harbor in Japan. According to one source, the incident was alleged by activists but a nearby Japanese government vessel failed to detect any such radiation leak. The purported incident was protested bitterly by the Japanese, with Premier Eisaku Sate warning that U.S. nuclear ships would no longer be allowed to call at Japanese ports unless their safety could be guaranteed.
You have to take this with a grain of salt, this was reported by activists, there was absolutely no evidence to support these claims. And no the Navy keeps extremely detailed records of all water added and drained from reactor primary systems. If there was a discharge, they would have been records and the Navy would not lie about it.
21 May 1968
The U.S.S. Scorpion, a nuclear-powered attack submarine carrying two Mark 45 ASTOR torpedoes with nuclear warheads, sank mysteriously on this day. It was eventually photographed lying on the bottom of the ocean, where all ninety-nine of its crew were lost. Details of the accident remained classified until November 1993, when the Navy admitted that it had suspected all along that the Scorpion had accidentally been torpedoed by an American vessel. The nuclear material was never recovered.
Again, not in any way related to navy reactors.
14 January 1969
A series of explosions aboard the nuclear aircraft carrier Enterprise left 17 dead and 85 injured.
Again, not in any way related.
16 May 1969
The U.S.S. Guitarro, a $50 million nuclear submarine undergoing final fitting in San Francisco Bay, sank to the bottom as water poured into a forward compartment. A House Armed Services subcommittee later found the Navy guilty of "inexcusable carelessness" in connection with the event.
Again, an open hatch is not related to the reliability of naval reactors.
12 December 1971
Five hundred gallons of radioactive coolant water spilled into the Thames River near New London, Connecticut as it was being transferred from the submarine Dace to the sub tender Fulton.
Yes, this is an accidental discharge of possibly contaminated material. But it is not a reactor accident.
October-November 1975
The USS Proteus, a disabled submarine tender, discharged significant amounts of radioactive coolant water into Guam's Apra Harbor. A geiger counter check of the harbor water near two public beaches measured 100 millirems/hour, fifty times the allowable dose.
This is a submarine tender, not a nuclear powered vessel. Think of it as a supply ship and garbage scow. Oh, and millirems/hour is not a dose, but a dose rate.
22 May 1978
Up to 500 gallons of radioactive water was released when a valve was mistakenly opened aboard the USS Puffer near Puget Sound in Washington.
Yes, another discharge of potentially radioactive material, but this is not a reactor accident.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter