[ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste

[Dan W McCarn]

Dear Group:

Since I worked on both WIPP and Yucca Mountain, I'll put in my two cents.

The difference between geologic vs. oceanic disposal is simple: For the
first 100+ years, the geologic repository is retrievable storage whereas
oceanic disposal is not.

At-Reactor storage is only feasible to a point. If ultimately fuel is
reprocessed, then perhaps the only additional "storage" needed is
retrievable.

Dan ii

--
Dan W McCarn, Geologist
108 Sherwood Blvd
Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
+1-505-672-2014 (Home - New Mexico)
+1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com





-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jim Darrough
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 15:55
To: 'Jerry Cohen'; 'The International Radiation Protection (Health
Physics)Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste

Uranium is cheap to mine, and plentiful.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 1:16 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste

George,
    You are right on! Why do we continue to pursue  the dumb idea of
geologic disposal of nuclear waste? Because, as Willie Sutton put it--Thats
where the money is! Many billions of dollars have already been squandered on
the concept of geologic disposal--and the scam will likely continue until
whenever the money runs out. Nobody want the kill the goose that lays the
golden eggs.
    Oceanic disposal would simply be too inexpensive, safe,and easy for
anybody to exploit.

Jerry Cohen



________________________________
From: George Stanford <gstanford at aya.yale.edu>
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 11:35:04 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Subduction Zones and Nuclear Waste

Joe:

    Here are some thoughts for your consideration.

    If the "nuclear waste" consists of used fuel from thermal reactors,
deep-sea disposal is indeed a bad idea -- not because of the radioactivity,
but because only 5% of the fuel's energy (or much less, in the case of HWRs)
has been used, and it would be expensive to try to retrieve it.  Much better
to put it in retrievable storage in Yucca Mountain, so that its uranium and
fissile material
(plutonium) will be available for when fast reactors are to be started up
(eventually doing away with uranium mining for centuries, and with milling,
and enrichment of uranium forever).

    But it's a different kettle of fish if the waste consists largely of
unwanted fission products (many of which have commercial value).
I'm not qualified to say whether you're right or wrong about the subduction
angle, but I'll point out that it doesn't matter - for two reasons.
First, the waste, packaged in suitable containers, can be dropped where it
will bury itself in the silt, where it will sit undisturbed for many
millennia, constituting less of an insult to the biosphere than just about
any other human activity you care to name.

    Suppose, however, the waste were to start to dissolve in the sea water
almost immediately (which it wouldn't).  Remember that the oceans are
already appreciably radioactive (K-40, mainly).
If you do the calculation, you find that, with reasonable dispersal of the
waste canisters, the increment to the oceans' radioactivity would be utterly
inconsequential.

    Why is this not taken seriously?  Because it's so cheap that there's no
money to be made from it, so there's no lobby for it.  The opposition comes
from an unholy alliance of uninformed environmentalists and interests that
want to be paid for researching and developing various expensive methods of
land disposal.

    -- George Stanford
        Reactor physicist, retired.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu

_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://health.phys.iit.edu