SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The materials the United States and other countries plan to use to store high-level nuclear waste will likely degrade faster than anyone previously knew because of the way those materials interact, new research shows.
The findings, published today in the journal Nature Materials, show that corrosion of nuclear waste storage materials accelerates because of changes in the chemistry of the nuclear waste solution, and because of the way the materials interact with one another.
“This indicates that the current models may not be sufficient to keep this waste safely stored,” said Xiaolei Guo, lead author of the study and deputy director of Ohio State’s Center for Performance and Design of Nuclear Waste Forms and Containers, part of the university’s College of Engineering. “And it shows that we need to develop a new model for storing nuclear waste.”
The team’s research focused on storage materials for high-level nuclear waste — primarily defense waste, the legacy of past nuclear arms production. The waste is highly radioactive. While some types of the waste have half-lives of about 30 years, others — for example, plutonium — have a half-life that can be tens of thousands of years. The half-life of a radioactive element is the time needed for half of the material to decay.
The United States currently has no disposal site for that waste; according to the U.S. General Accountability Office, it is typically stored near the plants where it is produced. A permanent site has been proposed for Yucca Mountain in Nevada, though plans have stalled. Countries around the world have debated the best way to deal with nuclear waste; only one, Finland, has started construction on a long-term repository for high-level nuclear waste.
But the long-term plan for high-level defense waste disposal and storage around the globe is largely the same. It involves mixing the nuclear waste with other materials to form glass or ceramics, and then encasing those pieces of glass or ceramics -- now radioactive -- inside metallic canisters. The canisters then would be buried deep underground in a repository to isolate it.
In this study, the researchers found that when exposed to an aqueous environment, glass and ceramics interact with stainless steel to accelerate corrosion, especially of the glass and ceramic materials holding nuclear waste.
The study qualitatively measured the difference between accelerated corrosion and natural corrosion of the storage materials. Guo called it "severe."
Journal Reference:
Xiaolei Guo, Stephane Gin, Penghui Lei, Tiankai Yao, Hongshen Liu, Daniel K. Schreiber, Dien Ngo, Gopal Viswanathan, Tianshu Li, Seong H. Kim, John D. Vienna, Joseph V. Ryan, Jincheng Du, Jie Lian, Gerald S. Frankel. Self-accelerated corrosion of nuclear waste forms at material interfaces. Nature Materials, 2020; DOI: 10.1038/s41563-019-0579-x
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @08:44PM (11 children)
Nope, it doesn't exist.
The only way to git rid of it is to send it to the Sun, or re-purpose it for reactors that can still use it.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday January 29 2020, @09:39PM (4 children)
The Appalachians have been around a lot longer than that, so have the Rockies. You want higher ground, so water can't flood it out too easily, so open-pit mines are out, as are mines on lower ground. But plenty of places meet the requirements.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:38PM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @12:11AM (2 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 30 2020, @01:26AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 30 2020, @05:21AM
Finally, so what if there is a fault line nearby (basin and range traditionally generate such faults due to the sliding of the blocks that make up the structure)? Just don't have it running through the site and you're good.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:02PM
You can't put it in the sun, if you do, the sun will put out 10 microseiverts per day to every single person on the planet. Totally unsafe!
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by FatPhil on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:28PM (2 children)
Up-modder of that comment - you're an idiot too - identify yourself so that I can capriciously downmod you elsewhere as punishment for your medieval anti-phyx stance.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 29 2020, @10:36PM
Well, to be fair, he didn't claim it to be a cost-efficient solution.
Besides, we can throw it at Jupiter or somewhere else.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by barbara hudson on Thursday January 30 2020, @02:08AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Thursday January 30 2020, @03:21AM
Just get some scientists to say that it will most likely last 25k years. At that point the science is settled and turns into established fact.
(Score: 2) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday January 30 2020, @04:20AM
I'd prefer you not send it to the sun for a few reasons.
1. It would take an astounding amount of energy.
2. Sometimes rockets explode. I do not want a rocket failure to create a plume of radioactive waste hundreds or thousands of miles long.
3. If we find some use for the material in the future we can't get it back.