Do you think it's a good idea to dump nuclear waste into the ocean?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (26).

[–] • 0 pt

I think it's a false problem since 4th gen nuclear power plants can be powered by nuclear waste...

Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are nuclear reactor design technologies that are envisioned as successors of generation III reactors. The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) - an international organization that coordinates the development of generation IV reactors - specifically selected six reactor technologies as candidates for generation IV reactors.[1][2] The designs target improved safety, sustainability, efficiency, and cost. The first commercial Gen IV plants are not expected before 2040–2050,[3] although the World Nuclear Association in 2015 suggested that some might enter commercial operation before 2030.[4]

Assessment

The GEN IV Forum reframes the reactor safety paradigm, from accepting that nuclear accidents can occur and should be mastered, to eliminating the physical possibility of an accident. Active and passive safety systems would be at least as effective as those of Generation III systems and render the most severe accidents physically impossible.[42]

Relative to Gen II-III, advantages of Gen IV reactors include:

Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia[43] 100–300x energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel[44] Broader range of fuels, including unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR). Potential to burn existing nuclear waste and produce electricity: a closed fuel cycle. Improved safety via features such as ambient pressure operation, automatic passive reactor shutdown, and alternate coolants.

A specific risk of the SFR is related to using metallic sodium as a coolant. In case of a breach, sodium explosively reacts with water. Argon is used to prevent sodium oxidation. Argon can displace oxygen in the air and can pose hypoxia concerns for workers. This was a factor at the loop type Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor Monju at Tsuruga, Japan.[45] Using lead or molten salt coolants mitigates this problem as they are less reactive and have a high freezing temperature and ambient pressure. Lead has much higher viscosity, much higher density, lower heat capacity, and more radioactive neutron activation products than sodium.

Multiple proof of concept Gen IV designs have been built. For example, the reactors at Fort St. Vrain Generating Station and HTR-10 are similar to the proposed Gen IV VHTR designs, and the pool type EBR-II, Phénix, BN-600 and BN-800 reactor are similar to the proposed pool type Gen IV SFR designs.

Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum cautions, "the problem with new reactors and accidents is twofold: scenarios arise that are impossible to plan for in simulations; and humans make mistakes".[46] As one director of a U.S. research laboratory put it, "fabrication, construction, operation, and maintenance of new reactors will face a steep learning curve: advanced technologies will have a heightened risk of accidents and mistakes. The technology may be proven, but people are not".[46]

I think it's a false problem since 4th gen nuclear power plants can be powered by nuclear waste... Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are nuclear reactor design technologies that are envisioned as successors of generation III reactors. The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) - an international organization that coordinates the development of generation IV reactors - specifically selected six reactor technologies as candidates for generation IV reactors.[1][2] The designs target improved safety, sustainability, efficiency, and cost. The first commercial Gen IV plants are not expected before 2040–2050,[3] although the World Nuclear Association in 2015 suggested that some might enter commercial operation before 2030.[4] Assessment The GEN IV Forum reframes the reactor safety paradigm, from accepting that nuclear accidents can occur and should be mastered, to eliminating the physical possibility of an accident. Active and passive safety systems would be at least as effective as those of Generation III systems and render the most severe accidents physically impossible.[42] Relative to Gen II-III, advantages of Gen IV reactors include: Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia[43] 100–300x energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel[44] Broader range of fuels, including unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR). **Potential to burn existing nuclear waste and produce electricity: a closed fuel cycle.** Improved safety via features such as ambient pressure operation, automatic passive reactor shutdown, and alternate coolants. A specific risk of the SFR is related to using metallic sodium as a coolant. In case of a breach, sodium explosively reacts with water. Argon is used to prevent sodium oxidation. Argon can displace oxygen in the air and can pose hypoxia concerns for workers. This was a factor at the loop type Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor Monju at Tsuruga, Japan.[45] Using lead or molten salt coolants mitigates this problem as they are less reactive and have a high freezing temperature and ambient pressure. Lead has much higher viscosity, much higher density, lower heat capacity, and more radioactive neutron activation products than sodium. Multiple proof of concept Gen IV designs have been built. For example, the reactors at Fort St. Vrain Generating Station and HTR-10 are similar to the proposed Gen IV VHTR designs, and the pool type EBR-II, Phénix, BN-600 and BN-800 reactor are similar to the proposed pool type Gen IV SFR designs. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum cautions, "the problem with new reactors and accidents is twofold: scenarios arise that are impossible to plan for in simulations; and humans make mistakes".[46] As one director of a U.S. research laboratory put it, "fabrication, construction, operation, and maintenance of new reactors will face a steep learning curve: advanced technologies will have a heightened risk of accidents and mistakes. The technology may be proven, but people are not".[46]

link