Technology makes storing radioactive waste safer

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.qut.edu.au/about/news/news?news-id=37568

Technology makes storing radioactive waste safer

31 October 2011

Queensland University of Technology (QUT) researchers have developed new technology capable of removing radioactive material from contaminated water and aiding clean-up efforts following nuclear disasters.

The innovation could also solve the problem of how to clean up millions of tonnes of water contaminated by dangerous radioactive material and safely store the concentrated waste.

Professor Huai-Yong Zhu from QUT Chemistry said the world-first intelligent absorbent, which uses titanate nanofibre and nanotube technology, differed from current clean-up methods, such as layered clays and zeolites, because it could efficiently lock in deadly radioactive material from contaminated water.

…

"One gram of the nanofibres can effectively purify at least one tonne of polluted water," Professor Zhu said.

…

[SpoonFed]

1. Sounds like...

church of technology grasping at fantasy solutions to real problems.
Please build these absorbers into the decks of the floating cities.

[kristopher]

3. Yes it is. Here is what Obama's science advisor has to say

Just to meet 1/3rd of global electric supply this is what we'd have to deal with:

If world electricity demand grows 2%/year until 2050 and nuclear share of electricity supply is to rise from 1/6 to 1/3...
– nuclear capacity would have to grow from 350 GWe in 2000 to 1700 GWe in 2050;
– this means 1,700 reactors of 1,000MWe each.

If these were light-water reactors on the once-through fuel cycle...
– enrichment of their fuel will require ~250 million Separative Work Units (SWU);
– diversion of 0.1% of this enrichment to production of HEU from natural uranium would make ~20 gun-type or ~80 implosion-type bombs.

If half the reactors were recycling their plutonium...
– the associated flow of separated, directly weapon- usable plutonium would be 170,000 kg per year;
– diversion of 0.1% of this quantity would make ~30 implosion-type bombs.

Spent-fuel production in the once-through case would be...
– 34,000 tonnes/yr, a Yucca Mountain every two years.

And then you have to ask "Why?"

1,200,000 engineers: We have the technology to slash global emissions

The technology needed to cut the world’s greenhouse gas emissions by 85% by 2050 already exists, according to a joint statement by eleven of the world’s largest engineering organisations.

...The statement says that generating electricity from wind, waves and the sun, growing biofuels sustainably, zero emissions transport, low carbon buildings and energy efficiency technologies have all been demonstrated. However they are not being developed for wide-scale use fast enough and there is a desperate need for financial and legislative support from governments around the world if they are to fulfil their potential.

...“While the world’s politicians have been locked in talks with no output, engineers across the globe have been busy developing technologies that can bring down emissions and help create a more stable future for the planet.

“We are now overdue for government commitment, with ambitious, concrete emissions targets that give the right signals to industry, so they can be rolled out on a global scale.” ...

http://www.imeche.org/news/archives/11-09-23/Future_Climate_2_We_have_the_technology_to_slash_global_emissions_say_engineers.aspx

[PamW]

2. Oklo Reactors

Millions of years ago, Mother Nature made her own nuclear reactors
at Oklo in Gabon:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Just as in man-made reactors, one of the byproducts of this
natural reactor is Plutonium. In the millions of years since
this reactor was active, the Plutonium has hardly moved. It
remains locked to the reactor site.

If Plutonium were released into the ground at a man-made
nuclear power plant, the anti-nukes would by decrying how the
Plutonium was diffusing through the soil at a rapid pace.

However, it doesn't work that way in reality. There are soils
and clays with very good ion-exchange properties that help to
inhibit the transport of Plutonium in the environment.

http://books.google.com/books?id=KQ18Mh9WdzwC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Plutonium+movement++Oklo&source=bl&ots=GD0v-S6oTv&sig=haA650k4LW96X7iDsfyXSOkYipc&hl=en&ei=OBC2TovcDOSSiALJy-B4&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Plutonium%20movement%20%20Oklo&f=false

The initial radioactive have long since decayed into stable elements
but close study of the amount and location of these has shown there
was little movement of radioactive wastes during and after the nuclear
reactions. Plutonium and other transuranics remained immobile.
...
Thus the only known "test" of underground at Oklo was successful over
a long period of time in spite of the characteristics of the site.


PamW