On 06/12/2018 18:45, mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:28:44 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , mechanic
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Dec 2018 16:35:40 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

IME all the people I talk to and those who are anti-nuclear on
this NG are far more concerned about disposal of nuclear waste.

Of course they are, decommisioning and disposal of waste is the
major cost in any nuclear power project. You claimed that this was
not a problem, and I never mentioned radiation by the way.

It's a problem but not an unsolved problem. That is the point.

And you mentioned the radioactive water ending up in the sea.

That's your idea of a solution is it?

Its a very very very dilute solution but a solution none the less.

Drink water? Ugh! Fish **** in it!

--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 06/12/2018 18:48, mechanic wrote:
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:33:37 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

Modern nuclear power stations are designed with decommissioning in
mind, which makes disposal of the waste a much simpler and safer
process, and no longer a problem.

Unfortunately not, as no-one knows how to store the waste long term.

They do.

Its oinlt f=greens idiuots who objhect to any way of stiorinmg it,
After all nuclear waste is leass dealy than heavy metals and they dont
decay at all do they?

Yet we manage to store them


--
€œA leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,
who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,
€œWe did this ourselves.€�

ۥ Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

On 06/12/2018 19:08, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , mechanic
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:31:47 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:

Been asleep? Waste disposal is a real and expensive problem.

It's a solved problem.

That's good to know.
Thus no need for all this fuss over siting a geological depository?
Just stockpile the stuff for ever?
Yes that'll work.

The short half life stuff can be stockpiled until it has decayed. In
the case of Fukushima, f'rinstance, it can be stated that if any
iodine-131 was released from there, there will, today, be not a
*single* atom of it left. Not one.

Long half life stuff is not dangerous - because it has a long half-life.

The medium length half life stuff can be stored underground (salt mines
are best). It can be turned into glass and then stored.

It could be dumped in the sea, but international bits of sea are
politically sensitive.


Decomissioning is relatively simple.
Run te nuke 40-60 years- spend 5 calmly takeing out the spent fuel and
really hot stuff, mothball for 60 years then demolish with no special
precautions.

Very cheap.



--
Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's
too dark to read.

Groucho Marx

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Dec 2018 15:05:56 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

It's no problem to anyone. The oceans are full of radioactivity
from natural sources anyway. A few more grams will just
be...well...a drop in the ocean.

Estimates are of a million tonnes of contaminated water, and no
agreed way of disposing. Some drop! And releasing it into the
Pacific will not ensure it is stirred well into the whole of the
oceans. Thus fishermen in the area object to such release. Stay
away from Pacific Prawns!

There has been no increase in the level of radioactivity in Pacific Prawns.

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:33:37 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

Modern nuclear power stations are designed with decommissioning in
mind, which makes disposal of the waste a much simpler and safer
process, and no longer a problem.

Unfortunately not, as no-one knows how to store the waste long term.

That's a lie. Put it back where it was dug up from originally.
It clearly survived there fine long term.

On 06/12/2018 22:50, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 18:48:13 +0000, mechanic
wrote:

On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:33:37 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

Modern nuclear power stations are designed with decommissioning in
mind, which makes disposal of the waste a much simpler and safer
process, and no longer a problem.

Unfortunately not, as no-one knows how to store the waste long term.

The Finns are already a long way down the road with their deep
underground storage facility.
https://tinyurl.com/yd78h473 and https://tinyurl.com/bpxlt3e

Nuclear waste can be dealt with in several ways. The fuel rods
themselves are left for several years on-site in deep tanks of water
to allow the intense and very short term radioactive species to decay.
Then they can either be sealed in concrete as they are, and enclosed
in stainless steel or copper, and stored in deep depositories
directly, as the Finns are doing. Or they can be reprocessed to
recover the considerable amounts of uranium and plutonium still in
them, for re-use, and the residue encapsulated in glass, sealed in
concrete, enclosed in stainless steel or copper, the containers either
stored above ground in 'warehouses' or in deep depositories, as with
the untreated fuel rods.

The advantage of the second method is that you recover all the useful
and unspent fuel for re-use, although an underground store with full
access to the containers does allow you to recover used fuel rods at a
later date if it's required. AIUI fuel for nuclear power stations is
so cheap, relatively, ATM, that it's questionable whether actually
recovering the uranium and plutonium is worth it.

The remaining core structure of the reactor can be sealed off for a
few tens of decades until the radioactivity decays to levels where
conventional demolition techniques can be used to take down the rest
of it. It only contains nuclides with relatively short half lives, so
the radioactivity decays away quite quickly.


Tried and tested methods. Nothing uncertain. Paid for in advance.

Good summary.



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

Mark Twain

On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:53:00 +1100, Tim J wrote:

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:33:37 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

Modern nuclear power stations are designed with decommissioning in
mind, which makes disposal of the waste a much simpler and safer
process, and no longer a problem.

Unfortunately not, as no-one knows how to store the waste long term.

That's a lie. Put it back where it was dug up from originally.
It clearly survived there fine long term.

Mate, you're clearly stuggling with nuclear physics, how are you on
plumbing?

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2018 08:53:00 +1100, Tim J wrote:

"mechanic" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 06 Dec 2018 12:33:37 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:

Modern nuclear power stations are designed with decommissioning in
mind, which makes disposal of the waste a much simpler and safer
process, and no longer a problem.

Unfortunately not, as no-one knows how to store the waste long term.

That's a lie. Put it back where it was dug up from originally.
It clearly survived there fine long term.

Mate, you're clearly stuggling with nuclear physics,

Easy to claim. Clearly what was dug up was fine there
for millions of years so there is no reason why the
longer half life waste wont be fine back there too.

how are you on
plumbing?

Fine with that too. Nothing I have done plumbing wise has failed.