[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: DOE plans to "burn-up" nuclear waste
There were peeps and yelps. They were not amplified as much as normal.
Perhaps because they were not as simple as "It is a totally horrible thing
and it will kill us all tomorrow."
Don Kosloff dkosloff@ncweb.com
2910 Main St., PERRY OH 44081
----- Original Message -----
From: Reynolds, Harold <Harold.Reynolds@rfets.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: DOE plans to "burn-up" nuclear waste
> A couple of years ago the Clinton Administration announced a plan to
reduce
> of our stockpile of weapons grade Pu partially by using it as fuel for
power
> reactors. It was barely covered in the media and there wasn't a peep from
> the anti crowd. What if a conservative administration had proposed this??
>
> Harry Reynolds
> 303-966-2708
> DP 303-212-5376
> 130TB #47
> Harold.Reynolds@RFETS.gov
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: H.B. Knowles [SMTP:hbknowles@hbknowles.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 12:28 PM
> > To: Multiple recipients of list
> > Subject: Re: DOE plans to "burn-up" nuclear waste
> >
> > --=====================_5511832==_.ALT
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
> >
> > At 07:01 03/14/2000 Tuesday, you wrote:
> > >I saw this in passing. It looks like DOE is looking for another
mission.
> > Can
> > >one assume that the politics in the use of plutonium will be a
"hurdle?"
> > >
> > >-- John
> > >
> > >-----Original Message-----
> > >From: ArcaMax [mailto:ezines@arcamax.com]
> > >Sent: March 14, 2000 12:27 AM
> > >To: Jacobus, John (OD)
> > >Subject: ArcaMax Science News for March 14, 2000
> > >. . .
> > >
> > > BURNING NEPTUNIUM, AND AMERICIUM, TOO
> > > By 2015, according to Los Alamos National Laboratory, the U.S.
> > nuclear
> > >power industry will have created about 70,000 tons of high-level
nuclear
> > >waste. One expensive, yet attractive way of treating it would be to
> > >transform much of it, using "accelerated transmutation of wastes," or
> > ATW.
> > >ATW could potentially take that amount of uranium, plutonium,
americium,
> > >neptunium and curium, and convert it into a small amount that needs
> > >disposal, and much more material that is stable. 95 percent of reactor
> > >waste is uranium, which does not require long-term storage. Using a
> > >waste-burner powered by the plutonium and containing a proton beam, the
> > >more radioactive parts of the waste would capture neutrons and be
> > converted
> > >into stable, non-hazardous materials, the lab says. And the
weapons-grade
> > >plutonium would be destroyed in the process, too. Los Alamos would like
> > to
> > >create a prototype facility in the next five years, if cost and other
> > >hurdles can be overcome.
> > >. . .
> > >--
> > >Copyright 2000 by United Press International.
> > >All rights reserved.
> > >--
> > >
> > >
> > >"Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes he
has
> >
> > >to eat
> > >them. "
> > >Adlai Stevenson
> > >
> > >John Jacobus, MS
> > >Health Physicist
> > >National Institutes of Health
> > >Radiation Safety Branch, Building 21
> > >21 Wilson Drive, MSC 6780
> > >Bethesda, MD 20892-6780
> > >Phone: 301-496-5774 Fax: 301-496-3544
> > >jjacobus@exchange.nih.gov (W)
> > >jenday1@email.msn.com (H)
> >
>************************************************************************
> > >The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > >information can be accessed at
http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> >
> > The ATW (Accelerator Transmutation of Waste) seems to have caused so
much
> >
> > merriment among people uninformed about it, that a few references to the
> > now-ongoing work might help to clear up some misunderstandings.
> > First, the idea has been around for a long time: indeed, when
> > LANSCE (then called LAMPF) first was turned on in the 1970s, I was only
> > one
> > of the visiting faculty who tried to promote a few related experiments.
> > Second, there was a burst of interest in the mid 1980s, as
> > someone
> > pointed out. When future waste disposal sites appear to be plentiful and
> > cheap, there isn't much enthusiasm for devising a replacement. Moreover,
> > the rapid demise of the USSR was not forseen, and the associated need to
> > literally destroy a lot of fissile material.
> > The current design can be found in a number of documents from Los Alamos
> > National Laboratory, in a Report to Congress dated September 1999," A
> > roadmap for developing ATW Technology " ( the Accelerator Technology
> > section is LA-UR-99-3225; the more comprehensive document is
DOE/RW-0519,
> > October, 1999; both are available on the web). There are a lot of very
> > competent people working on this project.
> >
> > The present reference design is as follows:
> >
> > Two (approximately 1 GeV accelerators, probably linear) would
> > each
> > drive four subcritical assemblies, each of the four at a level of 840
MW
> > th. At an assumed thermal-electric efficiency of 0.38, for a total of
2554
> >
> > MWe of power. The accelerators require a total of 380 MWe to operate, so
> > 2174 MWe can be sent to the grid.
> >
> > For those unfamiliar with recent developments in accelerator technology,
> > new designs make it possible to produce and handle beam powers of up to
1
> > GWe without excessive component activation (not required here) so the
> > major
> > technical difficulty is in the design of the "burners" and the
> > radiochemistry of the partially transmuted waste. But the idea is not
new
> > ;
> > indeed , when the first model of LAMPF was being designed at Yale
> > (1960-64), it was determined that a subcritical assembly could be
> > installed at the beam stop that would produce sufficient power to run
the
> > accelerator (not done because it was obvious that there would be lots of
> > cheap electrical power for a long time).
> >
> > The accelerator structure will cost more than a reactor to do the same
> > thing. But it can be built without all the paperwork that a new reactor
> > requires (it is not subject to NRC regulation) and onre really can close
> > it
> > off with a switch. The assemblies will of course remain highly
radioactive
> >
> > but that is what one can expect. It is somewhat surprising that there is
> > so
> > little enthusiasm shown for this technology.
> > H.B. Knowles, PhD, Physics Consulting
> > 4030 Hillcrest Rd, El Sobrante, CA 94803
> > Phone (510)758-5449
> > Fax (510) 758-5508
> > hbknowls@ix.netcom.com (until 1/31/00)
> > hbknowles@hbknowles.com (new)
> > <www.hbknowles.com>
> > --=====================_5511832==_.ALT
> > Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
> >
> > <html>
> > <font size=3>At 07:01 03/14/2000 Tuesday, you wrote:<br>
> > <blockquote type=cite cite>I saw this in passing. It looks like
DOE
> > is looking for another mission. Can<br>
> > one assume that the politics in the use of plutonium will be a
> > "hurdle?"<br>
> > <br>
> > -- John <br>
> > <br>
> > -----Original Message-----<br>
> > From: ArcaMax
> > [<a href="mailto:ezines@arcamax.com";
> > eudora="autourl">mailto:ezines@arcamax.com</a>]
> > <br>
> > Sent: March 14, 2000 12:27 AM<br>
> > To: Jacobus, John (OD)<br>
> > Subject: ArcaMax Science News for March 14, 2000<br>
> > . . .<br>
> > <br>
> > BURNING NEPTUNIUM, AND AMERICIUM, TOO<br>
> > By 2015, according to Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
> > U.S. nuclear <br>
> > power industry will have created about 70,000 tons of high-level nuclear
> > <br>
> > waste. One expensive, yet attractive way of treating it would be to
> > <br>
> > transform much of it, using "accelerated transmutation of
> > wastes," or ATW. <br>
> > ATW could potentially take that amount of uranium, plutonium, americium,
> > <br>
> > neptunium and curium, and convert it into a small amount that needs
> > <br>
> > disposal, and much more material that is stable. 95 percent of reactor
> > <br>
> > waste is uranium, which does not require long-term storage. Using a
> > <br>
> > waste-burner powered by the plutonium and containing a proton beam, the
> > <br>
> > more radioactive parts of the waste would capture neutrons and be
> > converted <br>
> > into stable, non-hazardous materials, the lab says. And the
weapons-grade
> > <br>
> > plutonium would be destroyed in the process, too. Los Alamos would like
> > to <br>
> > create a prototype facility in the next five years, if cost and other
> > <br>
> > hurdles can be overcome.<br>
> > . . .<br>
> > --<br>
> > Copyright 2000 by United Press International.<br>
> > All rights reserved.<br>
> > --<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > "Man does not live by words alone, despite the fact that sometimes
> > he has to eat<br>
> > them. " <br>
> > Adlai Stevenson<br>
> > <br>
> > John Jacobus, MS<br>
> > Health Physicist<br>
> > National Institutes of Health<br>
> > Radiation Safety Branch, Building 21<br>
> > 21 Wilson Drive, MSC 6780<br>
> > Bethesda, MD 20892-6780<br>
> > Phone: 301-496-5774 Fax: 301-496-3544<br>
> > jjacobus@exchange.nih.gov (W)<br>
> > jenday1@email.msn.com (H)<br>
> >
************************************************************************<b
> > r>
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and
> > subscription<br>
> > information can be accessed at
> > <a href="http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html";
> > eudora="autourl">http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html</a>
> > </font></blockquote><br>
> > The ATW (<u>A</u>ccelerator <u>T</u>ransmutation of <u>W</u>aste)
> > seems to have caused so much merriment among people uninformed about it,
> > that a few references to the now-ongoing work might help to clear up
some
> > misunderstandings.<br>
> > <x-tab> </x-tab>First,
the
> > idea has been around for a long time: indeed, when LANSCE (then called
> > LAMPF) first was turned on in the 1970s, I was only one of the visiting
> > faculty who tried to promote a few related experiments.<br>
> > <x-tab> </x-tab>Second,
> > there was a burst of interest in the mid 1980s, as someone pointed out.
> > When future waste disposal sites appear to be plentiful and cheap, there
> > isn't much enthusiasm for devising a replacement. Moreover, the rapid
> > demise of the USSR was not forseen, and the associated need to literally
> > destroy a lot of fissile material. <br>
> > The current design can be found in a number of documents from Los Alamos
> > National Laboratory, in a Report to Congress dated September 1999,"
> > <i>A roadmap for developing ATW Technology</i><font size=3> " ( the
> > Accelerator Technology section is LA-UR-99-3225; the more comprehensive
> > document is DOE/RW-0519, October, 1999; both are available on the web).
> > There are a lot of very competent people working on this project.<br>
> > <br>
> > The present reference design is as follows:<br>
> > <br>
> > <x-tab> </x-tab>Two
> > (approximately 1 GeV accelerators, probably linear) would each drive
four
> > subcritical assemblies, each of the four at a level of 840 MW th.
At
> > an assumed thermal-electric efficiency of 0.38, for a total of 2554 MWe
of
> > power. The accelerators require a total of 380 MWe to operate, so 2174
MWe
> > can be sent to the grid. <br>
> > <br>
> > For those unfamiliar with recent developments in accelerator technology,
> > new designs make it possible to produce and handle beam powers of up to
1
> > GWe without excessive component activation (not required here) so the
> > major technical difficulty is in the design of the "burners"
and
> > the radiochemistry of the partially transmuted waste. But the idea is
not
> > new ; indeed , when the first model of LAMPF was being designed at Yale
> > (1960-64), it was determined that a subcritical assembly could be
> > installed at the beam stop that would produce sufficient power to run
the
> > accelerator (not done because it was obvious that there would be lots of
> > cheap electrical power for a long time).<br>
> > <br>
> > The accelerator structure will cost more than a reactor to do the same
> > thing. But it can be built without all the paperwork that a new reactor
> > requires (it is not subject to NRC regulation) and onre really can close
> > it off with a switch. The assemblies will of course remain highly
> > radioactive but that is what one can expect. It is somewhat surprising
> > that there is so little enthusiasm shown for this technology.</font><br>
> > <div>H.B. Knowles, PhD, Physics Consulting</div>
> > <div>4030 Hillcrest Rd, El Sobrante, CA 94803</div>
> > <div>Phone (510)758-5449</div>
> > <div>Fax (510) 758-5508</div>
> > <div>hbknowls@ix.netcom.com (until 1/31/00)</div>
> > <div>hbknowles@hbknowles.com (new)</div>
> > <<a href="http://www.hbknowles.com/";
> > EUDORA=AUTOURL>www.hbknowles.com</a>>
> > </html>
> >
> > --=====================_5511832==_.ALT--
> >
> > ************************************************************************
> > The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> > information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html