So from the previous post's comments....
Yes, I think we can store spent fuel safely-we have been doing it for 30 years! We have two units on our site, and we store ours in a spent fuel pool. Its really not that large-and it holds all the fuel we have used in the past 30 years to power two nuclear plants. I think that is pretty impressive. Of course, there is waste from other plant activities but it is generally much lower level waste and isn't such a problem.
For not polluting and being a "cheap" energy alternative I think that the problem of spent fuel storage is a small price to pay. Many pools are getting fuller with spent fuel so a lot of companies are now moving to dry cask storage to store some of their fuel.
From Wikipedia...
"Dry cask storage is a method of storing high-level radioactive waste, such as spent nuclear fuel that has already been cooled in the spent fuel pool for at least one year. The fuel is surrounded by inert gas inside a large container. These casks are typically steel cylinders that are either welded or bolted closed. Ideally, the steel cylinder provides leak-tight containment of the spent fuel. Each cylinder is surrounded by additional steel, concrete, or other material to provide radiation shielding to workers and members of the public. Some of the cask designs can be used for both storage and transportation."
The types of tests done on the containers (I can't remember specifics anymore...) were things like sitting them in a fire, dropping from a height, hitting with a semi or train and they all survived. I strongly believe we have the technology to safely store spent fuel on sites as they have been doing since plants have been in operation.
Fuel reprocessing is a different story...
When I was in London for school one of our "field trips" was going to a nuclear waste reprocessing plant. It was before I was involved in the industry so I really don't remember much of it besides their fuel pool and watching some pieces get cut apart by a robot behind very thick glass. Because we aren't persuing this option in the United States right now I don't know a lot about it but I would have to believe we could also do this safely here.
I really don't think the fuel storage problem is as big of an issue as people make it out to be. Yes, it is around for millions of years after we use it but we use such a small amount compared to other fuels that I do not think it is that big of a problem.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
But if we increased the amount of nuclear power plants, could storage become an issue? I mean if this stuff is around for millions of years...wouldn't that be like having permanent landfills that can never be recycled?
I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I just want to know some facts about this so I can better argue an energy policy with some of my liberal RAs : )
I get that...but if you can operate for a hundred years and have plenty of capacity on your own site already to store the waste I don't think its an issue. The new plants will have the space as well.
Technology is advancing as we speak...I think we will only come up with more solutions in the future and I don't think it will be a major issue.
I'm glad you mentioned Europe. France is required to derive something like 70% of their power from nuclear energy. I believe they actually have something closer to 90% though. Having such a large population density (113/KM) they find a way to 'safely' store their waste. You can compare this with the United States which has a pop. density of 31/KM.
The safety professionals I know support the use of nuclear energy. Not just for job openings but also because they know that the threat isn't that great.
Your concern with safety isn't really an issue if you ask me. That's why there have been OSHA compliance officers since 1970. If storing nuclear waste wasn't safe it would have ended by now. Not only are there standard procedures but there are emergency responses in place.
Side note for a joke: Just like Katrina.
I also agree with Sarah on the technology aspect. With both parties claiming to support nuclear energy as an alternative source, I'm willing to bet funding for research will increase.
People are much more critical of nuclear power but if you saw the data you'd see that our oasha recordable rate is significantly better than other industries...we have never had a safety incident related to fuel or radiation exposure as long as I've been here and recently our reported injuries have included things like bee stings and paper cuts-we record things at an incredibly low threshold.
You have to do it that way though. Not only does it improve your stats as a company, looks good to a compliance officer, and if you do get cited for something you can take your documentation to court and usually get the fine reduced.
I didn't necessarily think that it was dangerous, and I'm glad to know now that it isn't as dangerous as many people think.
John McCain has been preaching expanding nuclear energy, while Barack Obama did not support it. Now, though, Obama claims to be supportive. He did the same thing with clean coal.
Hmm...is this another John Kerry flip-flopper?
I know-ive watched the energy talk more closely than anything obviously and that is what really has me annoyed about obama I think. And in the debates he claims that he never was against nuclear, its crazy.
since we are going to run out of oil, and eventually gas and coal we have to do something.
Post a Comment