On 07/03/17 11:41, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Chris Hogg
escribió:

I'm surprised that sludge is easier to deal with than swarf,
radioactive or otherwise

I guess sludge is more pipeable/vacuumable and it reduces the need to
find some way to manipulate (mechanically handle) bits of swarf. Suck
the gloop up along with its radioactivity-shielding water, transfer into
barrels, store in a deep hole in the ground.

I wonder if that's the plan for Sellafield's legacy ponds.

Nope.

Right now nuclear waste is not ready to be disposed of: efforts are
really going into stabilisation in terms of short to medium term storage.

The ponds were just where stuff was dumped. There is nothing special
about the sludge, its just that as in the granny joke, they've cleaned
up all the big bits and sludge is what's left.

Sellafield is having funding it needs provided and is in a slow steady
and measured way sorting out a legacy from the cold war of loads of
waste varying from barely worth a mention to quite hot really.


Since it needs funding anyway to clear up the cold war legacy, we might
as well have a vibrant nuclear industry to leverage a necessary facility
and help pay for it.


--
"If you dont read the news paper, you are un-informed. If you read the
news paper, you are mis-informed."

Mark Twain