AW: [ RadSafe ] The world's first permanent disposal sitefor used nuclear fuel will be at Forsmark, Sweden's SKB announcedtoday.
Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Fri Jun 5 13:40:49 CDT 2009
It still will be easier to recover than mining the energy-equivalent amount of uranium ore, and the longer sits before you reprocess, the easier the reprocessing can be.
If you REALLY want non-retrievable, drop it into a deep ocean subduction zone. Then wait a couple of eons.
-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf Of George Stanford
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 4:46 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: Re: AW: [ RadSafe ] The world's first permanent disposal sitefor used nuclear fuel will be at Forsmark, Sweden's SKB announcedtoday.
Franz & All:
Thanks to Bjorn Cederval for the additional info. At one of the sites
(<http://www.thelocal.se/19824>)
there is this:
>"The Swedish technique consists of storing two tonnes of spent fuel in
>copper-coated canisters that weigh 25 tonnes each.
>
>"Each canister is welded shut using a special technique and then
>mechanically deposited in a tunnel in the repository.
>
>"A buffer of bentonite clay, a volcanic ash that when mixed with water
>swells to provide a watertight barrier and protect against earthquakes,
>is then injected to fill the hole in the rock.
>
>"'The canisters are buried several metres apart so he rock can absorb
>the heat generated by the radioactive materials in each copper
>canister.'
>Engholm explains.
>
>"Once a tunnel in the repository is full, the tunnel is filled in with
>a mixture of bentonite and rock."
It does not appear that ease of retrievability is one of the design requirements.
-- George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 01:39 PM 6/4/2009, George Stanford wrote:
Franz:
If the decision makers in Sweden were aware of the points that I listed, they would not be emulating the mistake the US has made with Yucca Mountain. They would instead, in my opinion, be going with temporary surface storage (the route the US now seems to be taking in its bumbling efforts to accommodate ill-informed political pressures), pending the implementation of fast reactors.
I don't agree that lack of awareness of fast- reactor capability makes people "idiots." It merely means that they are uninformed (and it's our fault). But IF the used fuel will indeed be easily retrievable, that would be at least a partial vindication. All I know is what the article said:
"buried in clay," "isolated for 100,000 years."
You seem to be just assuming that "surely they would not be so dumb as to make it inaccessible."
I hope you are right. Can you refer us to any official confirmation that your supposition is correct?
And your remarks about the sad US record are indeed to the point But at least the stuff to be stored at Yucca Mountain was intended to be retrievable for the first 100 years. Now this country has reverted to surface storage -- which is probably good, as the awareness slowly spreads that fast reactors hold the solution, and that Yucca Mountain has been money largely wasted.
Sweden could postpone the repository decision, and save a lot of money.
The important thing, from my perspective, is that we in the nuclear-power profession have been far too reticent in letting the rest of the world know that, properly managed, uranium can power civilization from here on out -- safely, affordably, and with fewer environmental consequences than any other energy source.
-- George
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
At 06:52 AM 6/4/2009, Franz Schönhofer wrote:
George and other RADSAFErs,
I cannot take this message to be serious. I recall your previous comments, which were directed to my experience of the Chernobyl accident and tried to ridicule my experience of far more than ten years on this case. I further recall your similarly ridiculous comments on my experience as the head of the IAEA terrestrial working group on the Mururoa Project. So now you continue to distribute your ridiculous comments, using the Forsmark plans for disposal of use nuclear fuel.
A very short answer to your comments (questions), which imply that Swedish scientists are simply idiots and do not know anything about the nuclear fuel cycle. (I am not Swedish, though I know the language fluently.) How can you dare to put that forward on an international newsgroup?
How can you dare to put such a question on RADSAFE, taking into account that the world-wide signal has been distributed by the US-Carter administration, backing those anti-nuclear groups and which was of course used by the so-called "greens"? One of their most important goals always was - officially - the breaking of the nuclear fuel cycle. In the USA they obviously succeeded.
Ask your own US administration and don't blame anything on the European situation. Reprocessing is going on in Europe, but since decades it has been stalled in the USA - blame your own administration.
To all of my information, which might be wrong, the so called "final repositories" planned in Europe will allow retrieval of the fuel rods.
Think twice before you again write such a nonsensical message to RADSAFE.
Franz
Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag von George Stanford
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. Juni 2009 21:14
An: Cary Renquist
Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl
Betreff: Re: [ RadSafe ] The world's first permanent disposal site forused nuclear fuel will be at Forsmark, Sweden's SKB announced today.
Is there nobody influential in Sweden who knows that the used fuel that they're going to bury in clay -- presumably irretrievably -- still retains 95% of the energy it started with?
Nobody who knows that fast reactors can access that energy?
Nobody who knows that the waste form fast reactors (such as the IFR) is mainly fission products (one ton per GWe-year)?
Nobody who knows that the activity of that waste becomes too low to worry about within 500 years?
Nobody who knows that 90% of the ore's energy remains in the depleted uranium that's left over from the enrichment process -- energy that also can be used by fast reactors?
Nobody who knows that the IFR technology is ready now for a commercial-scale demonstration?
We don't seem to be very good at telling people about what nuclear power can do for the world, do we?
George Stanford
Reactor physicist, retired
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At 01:43 PM 6/3/2009, Cary Renquist wrote:
Forsmark for Swedish nuclear waste
03 June 2009
The world's first permanent disposal site for used nuclear fuel will be at Forsmark, Sweden's SKB announced today.
The decision was announced by SKB President, Claes Thegerström today after a board meeting yesterday. Forsmark, in the municipality of Östhammar, was selected in favour of Laxemar in the Oskarshamn municipality after a process of investigation and engagement that has lasted since 2002.
Site works towards the underground facility could begin in 2013, with full construction starting in
2015 and operation in 2023. This single facility, using only 15 hectares above ground, would hold all of the high-level radioactive waste from the nuclear power reactors that provide about 45% of Sweden's electricity. SKB will apply to nuclear safety regulators for premission to build in around one year's time.
The repository is designed to isolate the wastes for the 100,000 years it will take until their levels of radiation return to the original low levels of natural uranium. Used nuclear fuel assemblies are to be packed in cast iron baskets within thick copper canisters and packed in clay almost 500 metres below gound in a continguous section of igneous rock. At that level, groundwater movement is so slow that the wastes could never affect life at the surface. The method, known as KBS-3, was selected in 1983.
The competition to host the site was hard fought, with both communities taking keen interest - both municipalities already have nuclear facilities.
Forsmark already hosts a nuclear power plant and the final repository for short-lived radioactive waste, but its selection for this facility comes as something of a surprise. The used fuel for disposition at the CLAB interim store is in the Oskarshamn municipality near Laxemar, as will be the encapsulation plant. Also in that region is the Äspö hard rock laboratory where much of the practical work to demonstrate the disposal method has taken place
---
Cary Renquist
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or
unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or
unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list