its funny because YOU clearly don't know what you are talking about. Spent fuel pools aren't "out in the open", they are inside the auxiliary building at the plant. We are talking about being in a pool of water surrounded by 6-10ft of concrete that's inside another building with 2-4ft concrete walls. Also, people like you tend to overstate the deadliness of spent fuel, 10+ ft of water between you and it is all you need to be safe. As point of fact, I have personally been within 20ft of spent fuel and the dosimeter stayed at 0 mrem/hr.
its funny because YOU clearly don't know what you are talking about. Spent fuel pools aren't "out in the open", they are inside the auxiliary building at the plant. We are talking about being in a pool of water surrounded by 6-10ft of concrete that's inside another building with 2-4ft concrete walls. Also, people like you tend to overstate the deadliness of spent fuel, 10+ ft of water between you and it is all you need to be safe. As point of fact, I have personally been within 20ft of spent fuel and the dosimeter stayed at 0 mrem/hr.
They aren't under the reactor dome either which was what I was talking about. And you can shove your people like me shit up your ass. Only a total imbecile would create poisons that kill for a hundred thousand years and leave them to their kids. 'People like you' are the fuck heads that endanger the all life on earth. You dumb fuckers are a walking death wish, a bunch of psychopathic hubris monkeys and you're always male, testosterone blind shit heads. Just kidding. But here's a good piece on the issue:
Link
Hey, aren't those pools getting a bit crowded? Sure hope they don't spring a leak. Not a good idea to pack too much fissile material too tight.
That's the theory all right, but the casks, alas, are expensive so the rods stay in the water. It is the nature of pigs that they eat but don't shovel shit.
yllus
Elite Member & Lifer
- Aug 20, 2000
- 20,577
- 432
- 126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: yllus
What's the next boogeyman in your list to trot out?
That was probably published to discourage the terrorists
Wrong.
Even wronger. As mentioned by K1052, the spent fuel is then moved to dry facilities. These are relative tiny structures which look like this.
One warning:
Terrorist Threat From Nuclear Spent Fuel Rod Storage
The threat of terrorism makes dealing with nuclear waste storage problems an urgent priority.
space-saving method for storing spent nuclear fuel has dramatically heightened the risk of a catastrophic radiation release in the event of a terrorist attack, according to a study initiated at Princeton.
Terrorists targeting the high-density storage systems used at nuclear power plants throughout the nation could cause contamination problems "significantly worse than those from Chernobyl," the study found.
The study authors, a multi-institutional team of researchers led by Frank von Hippel of Princeton, called on the U.S. Congress to mandate the construction of new facilities to house spent fuel in less risky configurations and estimated a cost of $3.5 billion to $7 billion for the project.
The paper is scheduled to be published in the spring in the journal Science and Global Security.
Strapped for long-term storage options, the nation's 103 nuclear power plants routinely pack four to five times the number of spent fuel rods into water-cooled tanks than the tanks were designed to hold, the authors reported. This high-density configuration is safe when cooled by water, but would likely cause a fire -- with catastrophic results -- if the cooling water leaked. The tanks could be ruptured by a hijacked jet or sabotage, the study contends.
The consequences of such a fire would be the release of a radiation plume that would contaminate eight to 70 times more land than the area affected by the 1986 accident in Chernobyl. The cost of such a disaster would run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, the researchers reported.
Society is going to have to be gradually restructured to adjust for the danger posed by small groups waging asymmetric warfare. Technologies that are inherently less usable by terrorists should be preferred over technologies that are more easily turned against the society that uses them.
Terrorist Threat From Nuclear Spent Fuel Rod Storage
The threat of terrorism makes dealing with nuclear waste storage problems an urgent priority.
space-saving method for storing spent nuclear fuel has dramatically heightened the risk of a catastrophic radiation release in the event of a terrorist attack, according to a study initiated at Princeton.
Terrorists targeting the high-density storage systems used at nuclear power plants throughout the nation could cause contamination problems "significantly worse than those from Chernobyl," the study found.
The study authors, a multi-institutional team of researchers led by Frank von Hippel of Princeton, called on the U.S. Congress to mandate the construction of new facilities to house spent fuel in less risky configurations and estimated a cost of $3.5 billion to $7 billion for the project.
The paper is scheduled to be published in the spring in the journal Science and Global Security.
Strapped for long-term storage options, the nation's 103 nuclear power plants routinely pack four to five times the number of spent fuel rods into water-cooled tanks than the tanks were designed to hold, the authors reported. This high-density configuration is safe when cooled by water, but would likely cause a fire -- with catastrophic results -- if the cooling water leaked. The tanks could be ruptured by a hijacked jet or sabotage, the study contends.
The consequences of such a fire would be the release of a radiation plume that would contaminate eight to 70 times more land than the area affected by the 1986 accident in Chernobyl. The cost of such a disaster would run into the hundreds of billions of dollars, the researchers reported.
Society is going to have to be gradually restructured to adjust for the danger posed by small groups waging asymmetric warfare. Technologies that are inherently less usable by terrorists should be preferred over technologies that are more easily turned against the society that uses them.
Another warning:
Most people think the greatest threat is from a reactor meltdown. However, perhaps a greater vulnerability is the irradiated, or ?spent,? fuel stored at the reactor site. The irradiated fuel, often stored in a large concrete pool, contains much more radiation than the reactor itself. The General Electric Mark I and Mark II Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) are the most vulnerable in this regard. Nearly one in three reactors in the U.S. is of this design ? 32 in all. These reactors store their spent fuel in pools several stories above ground and outside the reactor containment structure, as opposed to on or below the ground and inside the reinforced concrete containment dome.
An NRC report issued in 2000 stated that ?Mark I and Mark II secondary containments generally do not appear to have any significant structures that might reduce the likelihood of aircraft penetration,? and that a fuel pool fire could cause casualties up to 500 miles away.[9] NAS wrote in their April 2005 report that ?Spent fuel storage facilities cannot be dismissed as targets,?[10] and that additional work to understand vulnerabilities ?is needed urgently.?[11] The NRC and industry, however, continue to maintain the likelihood of such an attack is too low to worry about.
Most people think the greatest threat is from a reactor meltdown. However, perhaps a greater vulnerability is the irradiated, or ?spent,? fuel stored at the reactor site. The irradiated fuel, often stored in a large concrete pool, contains much more radiation than the reactor itself. The General Electric Mark I and Mark II Boiling Water Reactors (BWR) are the most vulnerable in this regard. Nearly one in three reactors in the U.S. is of this design ? 32 in all. These reactors store their spent fuel in pools several stories above ground and outside the reactor containment structure, as opposed to on or below the ground and inside the reinforced concrete containment dome.
An NRC report issued in 2000 stated that ?Mark I and Mark II secondary containments generally do not appear to have any significant structures that might reduce the likelihood of aircraft penetration,? and that a fuel pool fire could cause casualties up to 500 miles away.[9] NAS wrote in their April 2005 report that ?Spent fuel storage facilities cannot be dismissed as targets,?[10] and that additional work to understand vulnerabilities ?is needed urgently.?[11] The NRC and industry, however, continue to maintain the likelihood of such an attack is too low to worry about.
The proper answer would be, 'No, and neither do you, dreamer, and none of those are radioactive", but the right answer is ZERO. No toxic waste will be pumped into the world, because as you should have remembered, except via nuclear processes matter can't be created or destroyed. Alternative energy solutions will create no new poisons
NikolaeVarius
Lifer
- Oct 25, 2006
- 11,036
- 11
- 91
The important thing to remember for the technically minded who are profoudnly linear in their thinking and lack the flexibility of the more artistic who employ the right side of their brains to a greater degree is Murphy's Law.
Even the most thick lensed engineer who shares his ass with a slide rule and his head, should be able to understand the logic of that law and radioactive for a million years. The Universe they say was created so that everything that can happen will, and that is why no sane person creates nuclear waste. Only a total asshole, I repeat, would create deadly poisons that last a million years. You can't guarantee you will be alive tomorrow, much less that your carefully laid plans for safe storage in a million years won't be breached. Only an asshole created poisons that could kill that far beyond our capacity to comprehend.
Even the most thick lensed engineer who shares his ass with a slide rule and his head, should be able to understand the logic of that law and radioactive for a million years. The Universe they say was created so that everything that can happen will, and that is why no sane person creates nuclear waste. Only a total asshole, I repeat, would create deadly poisons that last a million years. You can't guarantee you will be alive tomorrow, much less that your carefully laid plans for safe storage in a million years won't be breached. Only an asshole created poisons that could kill that far beyond our capacity to comprehend.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
Spent fuel is probably better protected in casks then they are in the pool. Although the chances of release from either is still practically zero.
There are two types of dry storage: thick-walled steel casks and concrete bunker type. The first kind stores fuel in multiple-walled foot-think bolted steel canister. The second type uses thinner, welded steel canisters stored in a multiple-foot-think concrete bunker.
P.S. - I used to be in the spent fuel department of where I work. I have personally stood right next to the casks as they were being placed. The dose rate is not dangerous, even standing right next to one (although I wouldn't want to hang around all day
)
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Hmmmm...
Seems to me anyone wanting to harm the US would dirty up the World's oil fields first. Not as dramatic as some nuclear spent fuel event but effective.
It is kind of dumb when you think about it to have all this 'waste' material sitting about with a half life of 10,000 yrs... well.. to be safe, I'm told, takes 24 half lives... hell Social Security will be broke by then...
I'm starting to see that IF there is a viable disposable method.. maybe mid ocean trench or a flight to the sun... the prohibitive costs would make anything more desirable.
I think a few solar panels on each house and a windmill too may not be a bad idea.. along with them wave action generating thingi...
Calyfornya seems a wonderful place to totally rely on Moonbeam's green stuff... we can sell it to you all Minnesotans.
Seems to me anyone wanting to harm the US would dirty up the World's oil fields first. Not as dramatic as some nuclear spent fuel event but effective.
It is kind of dumb when you think about it to have all this 'waste' material sitting about with a half life of 10,000 yrs... well.. to be safe, I'm told, takes 24 half lives... hell Social Security will be broke by then...
I'm starting to see that IF there is a viable disposable method.. maybe mid ocean trench or a flight to the sun... the prohibitive costs would make anything more desirable.
I think a few solar panels on each house and a windmill too may not be a bad idea.. along with them wave action generating thingi...
Calyfornya seems a wonderful place to totally rely on Moonbeam's green stuff... we can sell it to you all Minnesotans.
QuantumPion
Diamond Member
- Jun 27, 2005
- 6,010
- 1
- 76
Spent fuel may be radioactive and dangerous for a few hundred or a thousand years, but the chemicals used routinely in the production of consumer goods, e.g. chlorine, plastics, heavy metals, acids, organics, solvents, etc. will remain toxic and deadly FOREVER.
For example, there is enough chlorine gas around, produced for industrial use, to kill the entire world's population 100,000 times over.
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