In message , "Nightjar
\"cpb\"@" "insert my surname writes
On 24/09/2014 22:16, bert wrote:
In message , Chris Hogg
writes
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:23:30 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...110420/Swansea
-Bay-tidal-lagoon-plan-bolstered-by-former-Atkins-boss.html

They should really be looking at the whole Bristol Channel/estuary.

Massive environmental impact and enormous cost. A better alternative
surely are marine turbines. Less impact, less cost, and installable
over a large part of the estuary, as you suggest. But still no leccy
at slack water, the weakness of all tidal systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_stream_generator

An even better alternative is a f****** great nuke.

Collect all the greenies in one place and drop one on them?

Waste of good plutonium
--
bert

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Nick" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:

As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.

I won't claim to know my arse from my elbow but I thought a lot of this
waste contained valuable metals. Wouldn't it be better to store it so
that it is retrievable for a time we may be able to process them
effectively.

e.g. Gasification and stored in underground caverns in granite or
such like.
You are not alone.
Gasification?

Glassification.

There is a big debate as to whether nuclear waste in geological
storage should be easily retrievable or not.

Normally you put it in old salt mines. Salt dissolves in water, so if
there are large salt deposits then you know that there has been no
water passing by since the salt was laid down millions of years ago. So
no chance of contaminating the water table.

Yeh Underneath Winsford then press the red button.
--
bert

In message , Tim Streater
writes
In article , \"cpb\"@"
wrote:

On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:
...
As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.
Unfortunately, there are international treaties that prohibit doing
that.

The US and the UK can declare war on each other. Then each can sail
merchant ships full of the stuff over the trenches. These ships can be
sunk by the other side's subs. One war every 10 years should do it,
followed each time by treaties of eternal friendship.

Yes but can you rely on the yanks to get it right and switch off.
--
bert

On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 12:44:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 26/09/14 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Richard
wrote:

"harryagain" wrote in message ...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Try also

http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/B...ssil_Fuels.pdf

and

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/

Quote from above.:-
For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be
to convert the waste into a glass - a technology that is well in hand
- and simply drop it into the ocean at random locations.5 No one can
claim that we don't know how to do that! With this disposal, the
waste produced by one power plant in one year would eventually cause
an average total of 0.6 fatalities, spread out over many millions of
years, by contaminating seafood. Incidentally, this disposal
technique would do no harm to ocean ecology. In fact, if all the
world's electricity were produced by nuclear power and all the waste
generated for the next hundred years were dumped in the ocean, the
radiation dose to sea animals would never be increased by as much as
1% above its present level from natural radioactivity.

So another one who has no answers to the disposal od nuclear waste.
Everything is simple to the simpleminded.

The text quoted by you is an answer to the disposal of nuclear waste.
Perhaps I'm being simpleminded, but it is much preferable to being a
complete idiot.

harry is in la-la land, with his fingers in his ears. He's been told
that glassification has been being done in the UK for 20 years but
pretends he's never heard of it.

As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.


If it were actually that dangerous.

The more studies are done, the more the answer seems to be that
radiation is 100 to 1000 times less dangerous at low levels, than the
regulations imply.

Yes, it's all rather sad that they dismissed the principal of "System
Overload" effect in estimating the damaging effects of radiation
regarding the time element of the exposure equation.

Recieving a whole day's worth of sunshine in just one hour would be
lethal and a similar effect with other forms of radiation should have
been expected to apply with radioactivity in regard to dose rates.

The penny finally seems to be dropping in the mind of the standards
bodies. Pity it took a few "Major" disasters (besides the Hiroshima
and Nagasaki events) for that fact to finally start sinking in.
--
J B Good

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Nick" wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:

As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be
left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.

I won't claim to know my arse from my elbow but I thought a lot of this
waste contained valuable metals. Wouldn't it be better to store it so
that it is retrievable for a time we may be able to process them
effectively.

e.g. Gasification and stored in underground caverns in granite or such
like.

You are not alone.
Gasification?

Glassification.

There is a big debate as to whether nuclear waste in geological storage
should be easily retrievable or not.

Normally you put it in old salt mines. Salt dissolves in water, so if
there are large salt deposits then you know that there has been no
water passing by since the salt was laid down millions of years ago. So
no chance of contaminating the water table.


Is that so?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_g..._certain_sites
Actually building the site disturbs things and stability is destroyed.

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:
...
As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all the
other radioactive material that's already there.

Unfortunately, there are international treaties that prohibit doing that.


And for good reason.
Another crap idea by the desperate nuclear industry.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:
...
As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just be
left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean
trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join all
the
other radioactive material that's already there.

Unfortunately, there are international treaties that prohibit doing
that.

And for good reason.

Which good reason would that be, then, harry? Hint: polluting our
"pristine" ocean is not any sort of reason.

Because there is life at the bottom of the oceans.
They are not divorced from us either.

Eats glass does it?

That the best you can come up with?

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:57:41 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Why do you supposeglass is stable even for five thousand years?

There are plenty of examples of natural glass, formed by
quench-cooling of molten silica-rich rocks such as some volcanic lavas
(rhyolites), that have been around and stable for hundreds of millions
of years. It has the general name 'obsidian', and was used by early
man in many parts of the world for cutting tools and weapons, much as
flint was used in the UK. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian

Having said that, the composition of obsidian is not the same as the
glass used for encapsulating nuclear waste, which in the UK is a
borosilicate glass with composition broadly similar Pyrex. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioac...#Vitrification

If it were soeasy it would bebeing done.
And it isn't.

Yes it is. This, from the Wiki reference link above:

"Currently at Sellafield the high-level waste (PUREX first cycle
raffinate) is mixed with sugar and then calcined. Calcination involves
passing the waste through a heated, rotating tube. The purposes of
calcination are to evaporate the water from the waste, and de-nitrate
the fission products to assist the stability of the glass produced.

The 'calcine' generated is fed continuously into an induction heated
furnace with fragmented glass. The resulting glass is a new substance
in which the waste products are bonded into the glass matrix when it
solidifies. This product, as a melt, is poured into stainless steel
cylindrical containers ("cylinders") in a batch process. When cooled,
the fluid solidifies ("vitrifies") into the glass. Such glass, after
being formed, is highly resistant to water."

And as Tim Streater pointed out "The Life Scientific", BBC R4 Jan
2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qw9hj

Just another half wit "academic" dismissing the problem because they
don'tknow what to do aboutit.

BTW how do you "turm nuclear waste into glass"?

So they don't turn iy into glass, they mix it with glass.
What effect has this on the glass and how is this the same as obsidian?
How long does stainless steel last when buried?
Why aren't they burying it?

ISTR this process was done to render the waste unusable for weapons, not for
disposal.
I notice you left out the last bit of the Wiki quote
"The amount of fission products in the glass must be limited because some
(palladium, the other Pt group metals, andtellurium) tend to form metallic
phases which separate from the glass. Bulk vitrification uses electrodes to
melt soil and wastes, which are then buried underground.[48] In Germany a
vitrification plant is in use; this is treating the waste from a small
demonstration reprocessing plant which has since been closed "

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , harryagain
wrote:

"Nightjar "cpb"@" "insert my surname here wrote in message
...
On 26/09/2014 10:47, Tim Streater wrote:
...
As glass is quite stable and is not likely to be eroded or
damaged
until the planet melts in 500 million years time, it could just
be left
to itself. The obvious answer is indeed to put it in an ocean
trench,
where over aeons it will be subducted into the mantle, to join
all the
other radioactive material that's already there.

Unfortunately, there are international treaties that prohibit
doing that.

And for good reason.

Which good reason would that be, then, harry? Hint: polluting our
"pristine" ocean is not any sort of reason.

Because there is life at the bottom of the oceans.
They are not divorced from us either.

Eats glass does it?

That the best you can come up with?

You said "Because there is life at the bottom of the oceans". That the
best reason you could come up with? What if there is life down there -
at the smokers at 300 or 400C? Why would it pay any attention to
stainless steel canisters full of glass - unless it eats glass, that
is.

I see you never read TNP's link.
The half wit was proposing to sprinkle radioactive glass beads in the ocean.
There is life in all parts of the abyss, not just round "smokers".

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:07:45 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:


"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:57:41 +0100, "harryagain"
wrote:

Why do you supposeglass is stable even for five thousand years?

There are plenty of examples of natural glass, formed by
quench-cooling of molten silica-rich rocks such as some volcanic lavas
(rhyolites), that have been around and stable for hundreds of millions
of years. It has the general name 'obsidian', and was used by early
man in many parts of the world for cutting tools and weapons, much as
flint was used in the UK. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian

Having said that, the composition of obsidian is not the same as the
glass used for encapsulating nuclear waste, which in the UK is a
borosilicate glass with composition broadly similar Pyrex. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioac...#Vitrification

If it were soeasy it would bebeing done.
And it isn't.

Yes it is. This, from the Wiki reference link above:

"Currently at Sellafield the high-level waste (PUREX first cycle
raffinate) is mixed with sugar and then calcined. Calcination involves
passing the waste through a heated, rotating tube. The purposes of
calcination are to evaporate the water from the waste, and de-nitrate
the fission products to assist the stability of the glass produced.

The 'calcine' generated is fed continuously into an induction heated
furnace with fragmented glass. The resulting glass is a new substance
in which the waste products are bonded into the glass matrix when it
solidifies. This product, as a melt, is poured into stainless steel
cylindrical containers ("cylinders") in a batch process. When cooled,
the fluid solidifies ("vitrifies") into the glass. Such glass, after
being formed, is highly resistant to water."

And as Tim Streater pointed out "The Life Scientific", BBC R4 Jan
2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qw9hj

Just another half wit "academic" dismissing the problem because they
don'tknow what to do aboutit.

BTW how do you "turm nuclear waste into glass"?

So they don't turn iy into glass, they mix it with glass.

You haven't read what it says. Yes, the waste is mixed with glass and
fed into an induction-heated furnace where it all melts together and
forms a glass of different composition. Do you know anything about
glass manufacture, for example window glass? Quartz sand, limestone
and soda ash (sodium carbonate) together with some minor components,
are heated together in a furnace, when they melt together to form a
liquid of uniform composition. The individuality of the components are
lost (there are no free sand particles remaining, for example) and
they all just become components of the glass. So it is with
glassification of nuclear waste.

What effect has this on the glass and how is this the same as obsidian?

It is only the same as obsidian to the extent that both are
non-crystalline solids with high silica contents and obsidian is able
to survive unchanged for millions of years deep within the earth's
crust.

How long does stainless steel last when buried?

I've no idea. But that doesn't mean it won't last for the thousands of
years necessary. I don't doubt for one minute that reliable estimates
have been made of the durability of the stainless steel containers, by
people competent to make such measurements. You don't have to bury
stainless steel for 5000 years to know whether it will survive for
that time, any more than you have to observe a lump of uranium-235 for
700 million years to know that half of it will have gone in that time.

Why aren't they burying it?

Political reasons, not technical. When the general public realise that
it's not the hazard that people like you say it is and are happy to
have burial sites in their area, it will be buried, but not buried as
in just digging a hole and covering it with earth, but stored in
underground storage areas such as the one being constructed at Onkalo
in Finland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_...uel_repository.

Meanwhile, it's being stored quite safely above ground.

ISTR this process was done to render the waste unusable for weapons, not
for
disposal.

Even if true, it doesn't rule it out as a very safe means of disposal.

I notice you left out the last bit of the Wiki quote
"The amount of fission products in the glass must be limited because some
(palladium, the other Pt group metals, andtellurium) tend to form metallic
phases which separate from the glass. Bulk vitrification uses electrodes
to
melt soil and wastes, which are then buried underground.[48] In Germany a
vitrification plant is in use; this is treating the waste from a small
demonstration reprocessing plant which has since been closed "

Left out because it wasn't relevant to your query. Controlling the
composition of the glass to limit its content of the platinum-group
metals is trivial, just as is controlling the composition of window or
bottle glass. And they're using a vitrification plant in Germany to
clean up and solidify waste left over from a now-closed pilot-scale
reprocessing plant. So what?

They're not burying it because they have no idea if the method is viable or
not.
They are all watching one another's projects to see what happens and if
there's a cockup.
There;s a few cockups here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_g..._certain_sites

So they produce and store ever more waste with no idea how to permanently
deal with it.
They make placatery noises to sooth the proles and half wits.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...ste-sellafield
And one from the USA
http://news.yahoo.com/cooper-nrc-no-...ZJUFVLMTNfMQ--