Science questions not worth a thread I: I'm a moron!

[Cutlass]

Is it possible to recycle nuclear radiation/radioactivity (and/or the elements causing it?) and process it back into nuclear fuel?

Up to a point you can. The French IIRC, operate a major reprocessing plant. This does significantly extend the amount of uranium fuel available. But there's still a lot of waste remaining.

Cutlass - Burial at sea poses problems due to corrosion and the fact that what's buried way out there wouldn't stay buried if there was a leak. Even if it's thousands of miles from civilization, it could still affect civilization through ruined fish stocks and so forth. Plus, burying it deep under the sea bed is a major technical challenge.

I don't really see the problem as something that can't be lived with. The deep abyssal plains have very little life, and very little current. So anything there is just going to stay put for many 1000s of years.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I guess you're right on being able to live with it. But you'd still have to convince the militant-greenpeace types to allow it and then figure out how to do it.

 

[dutchfire]

If thorium reactors are such a great idea, like this guys is saying, why has no one built one?

Buying a nuclear scientist isn't that popular at cocktail parties, there isn't that much government money in non-army nuclear research (many European nations are scaling back their nuclear activities, most of the plants that exist are old). Safety standards for nuclear experiments are probably very high and expensive. Exploring an entirely new approach to fission has a high cost, with uncertain benefits, people aren't jumping into it in large bunches. And if you're the politician that agreed to host a fission experiment in your state, which goes boom, you're pretty certain not to be re-elected.

But I believe the Chinese aren't that bothered by these concerns and are scaling up their fission research, including thorium.

 

[dutchfire]

Is it possible to recycle nuclear radiation/radioactivity (and/or the elements causing it?) and process it back into nuclear fuel?

I think one of the things that they're experimenting with is putting radioactive waste near a reactor so it will get irradiated, hoping to turn the dangerous elements into elements that are either stable, or decay very quickly.

 

[Meteor Man]

But I believe the Chinese aren't that bothered by these concerns and are scaling up their fission research, including thorium.

This is true. If any progress is going to be made in nuclear physics, best guess is that it's going to come from, ironically, China.

And about the under the sea idea...suppose humans are able to store that waste under water for thousands of years until technology becomes available that renders dirty fission obsolete. What then? You have many thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel wasting away under one of the most corroding, abundant liquids on the planet, possibly spilling radioactive juices into the water. True, there's no current, but retrieval is out of the question. What if humans come to inhabit the sea bed in those thousands of years? Talk about a major mess to clean up.

 

[Cutlass]

I guess you're right on being able to live with it. But you'd still have to convince the militant-greenpeace types to allow it and then figure out how to do it.

To me, it's still a better choice than any of the alternatives. Because over the course of 1000s of years, the bottom of the ocean is the place that is I think radioactive waste is least likely to cause a serious problem in the future.

 

[emzie]

I think one of the things that they're experimenting with is putting radioactive waste near a reactor so it will get irradiated, hoping to turn the dangerous elements into elements that are either stable, or decay very quickly.

ahahaha I would love to try and explain this to someone!

"What's your solution to all this nuclear waste?"
"Well, we were thinking of plopping it inside the reactor's shielding so that it's bombarded by radiation."
"Are you sure you're a real nuclear scientist?"

 

[hobbsyoyo]

To me, it's still a better choice than any of the alternatives. Because over the course of 1000s of years, the bottom of the ocean is the place that is I think radioactive waste is least likely to cause a serious problem in the future.

Preaching to the choir here. It's the anti-nuclear crowd you have to convince, not me.

 

[peter grimes]

To be clear, any proposal for disposal under the sea bed doesn't simply mean plopping the casks into the mud and walking away. There would be concrete - cubic kilometers worth - encasing everything.

I used to follow nuclear disposal stuff when Yucca Mountain was still being discussed. The biggest issue is not the engineering, but the geology. They want to have a complete understanding of the water tables, fissures, and anything that might change on the scale of 100,000 years. So in discussing the sea bed, I imagine that the scope of understanding of a site simply isn't possible.

But, I'm really not sure. I could be very wrong.

 

[emzie]

If you're looking for a geologically stable area far away from humans with minimized risk should something go wrong, the sea bed sounds alright. It also sounds like one massive challenge.

 

[dutchfire]

ahahaha I would love to try and explain this to someone!

"What's your solution to all this nuclear waste?"
"Well, we were thinking of plopping it inside the reactor's shielding so that it's bombarded by radiation."
"Are you sure you're a real nuclear scientist?"

"What's the worst that could happen?"
"It could become radioactive. Ah, I see..."

 

[Cutlass]

If you're looking for a geologically stable area far away from humans with minimized risk should something go wrong, the sea bed sounds alright. It also sounds like one massive challenge.

It doesn't seem that serious to me. The goal is to keep the radioactive waste from contaminating anything that would eventually harm people. There is just very little mixing between the waters at the deep seafloor and the higher waters that the food chain lives in. And there is vast volumes of water to dilute the problem that is going to take centuries to leak out in any case.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I think the challenge though is to get all the waste together and send it out to sea, then take that waste and bury it deep underground, which is already deep beneath the ocean. That can't be easy.

 

[Cutlass]

I don't see why it would need to be underground under the ocean. The ocean itself would contain it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Oh I see.

The ocean tends to erode things would be my principle objection to just letting it sit on the sea floor. I had other reasons, but after thinking about them they're moot.

 

[CKS]

Can anyone recommend a good, recent book on dinosaurs and related creatures for parents of children who are obsessed with dinosaurs? I haven't followed dinosaurs in nearly 40 years, and I just have this feeling that we've learned some stuff since then. I'm looking for a book for me, not for the kids.

 

[madviking]

Can anyone recommend a good, recent book on dinosaurs and related creatures for parents of children who are obsessed with dinosaurs? I haven't followed dinosaurs in nearly 40 years, and I just have this feeling that we've learned some stuff since then. I'm looking for a book for me, not for the kids.

I had the Complete Idiot's Guide to Dinosaurs as a kid. I read it at least three times.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If I remember correctly, this one was pretty good. Written more towards children in tone, but full of useful information for all ages.

 

[Cutlass]

Oh I see.

The ocean tends to erode things would be my principle objection to just letting it sit on the sea floor. I had other reasons, but after thinking about them they're moot.

I think corrosion is actually a bit less in the really deep ocean, because of the lack of free oxygen.

 

[dutchfire]

The Russians tried something like this once