SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
One of the issues involving nuclear power has been what to do with the waste materials. What if there was a way to not only convert the problematic materials into a safer storage form, but also enable that same storage form to be used as fuel in newer nuclear power generators? Sounds too good to be true, doesn't it?
That may have changed:
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-reveals-single-step-strategy-recycling-nuclear.html
I would prefer more 'green' sources of energy production, but this is something that may be useful to help that along, making coal and petroleum energy production a part of history.
Journal Reference
Jeffrey D. Einkauf, Jonathan D. Burns. Recovery of Oxidized Actinides, Np(VI), Pu(VI), and Am(VI), from Cocrystallized Uranyl Nitrate Hexahydrate: A Single Technology Approach to Used Nuclear Fuel Recycling, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research (DOI: 10.1021/acs.iecr.0c00381)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rigrig on Tuesday May 05 2020, @12:02PM (8 children)
Yes, it does sounds too good to be true.
So instead of dumping everything, they found a way to separate out still fissionable material for future use. Which is actually pretty great.
Too bad we can't actually use it yet:
But just being able to store the waste which decays in mere centuries separately seems like a nice step forward.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday May 05 2020, @02:34PM (6 children)
What if we were to store all the long-decay nuclear waste on the far side of the moon?
Not in anyone's back yard.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Tuesday May 05 2020, @02:40PM (1 child)
How would you get it there? The catastrophic failure mode of a rocket has minimal impact on the environment. The catastrophic failure mode of a rocket filled with nuclear waste, would be much worse for the environment. I wouldn't vote for it.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2020, @03:26PM
OK then, well what if we put it in a big pile in the desert and nuke it? Like with hurricanes [theguardian.com]. Surely bleach would dissolve it? I've got all day what else do you need - hey can I get a loan?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2020, @09:58AM (3 children)
That was literally the plot of it. The Earth stored all its spent nuclear waste on the far side of the moon, either sabotage or a stellar radiation even happened causing it to explode launching the moon out of Earth's orbit and sending them barrelling out of the solar system.
While I doubt the adventures of the show would happen, it does raise concerns about inept storage leading to a nuclear event sufficient to destabilize the Moon's orbit around earth, or flinging debris off that severely hampers our transit out of near-earth space.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday May 06 2020, @07:40PM (2 children)
I did see Space 1999.
Once I saw Barbara Bain's acting, I then understood where they got the idea for Commander Data.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday May 07 2020, @09:07PM (1 child)
That's a pretty common objection in space 1999 reviews, but, given the context of people thrown into outer space, it seems quite weak to me, I like the series exactly because of the atmosphere in the first season. Space is cold, not a place to waltz or to play cowboys.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday May 07 2020, @09:48PM
I did enjoy it somewhat.
Outstanding things were:
* sets
* props
Very good: (for the time)
* special effects
Alas, I was less happy with the stories. Some episodes better than others.
The overall general plot of the entire series was something I had to suspend disbelief for even as a teen in the 1970's. The idea that the moon would travel to and beyond stars, through a black hole, etc. I did like the Queller drive episode. It's been a long time.
The 2nd season was a step backward. Why did they screw up the main mission set? It was nice the way it was. And other changes.
I also enjoyed the British UFO series, but alas I only got to see a few episodes as a kid, and didn't really get to see it until much later in life, about 2000 or thereabout.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday May 05 2020, @06:47PM
something to keep in mind about this new process is in a single step is separates all the usable fuel from the waste, which is something that usually requires a far more steps. Once the real waste has been separated out the resulting crystals will be much easier to handle and store than the original spent fuel rods. And it is probably not going to be that hard to add some steps to convert the crystals into new fuel rods that could be used in existing power plants. What the article is talking about when it mentions the future reactors is referring to designs that could use the crystals directly.. We could start processing the existing waste now and worry about how to use it in a reactor later.
Being an advocate of Molten Salt Reactors [wikipedia.org] I have to wonder how easy would it be to convert the crystals from this process into the fuels salts used in the MSRs.
And now that I think about it I wonder if the crystals from this process could be used directly in a CANDU [wikipedia.org] style reactor. Since it can use un-enriched raw Uranium ore for fuel it might be able to use the crystals directly. CANDU also has the advantage of being an existing technology that has already been deployed in various locations around the world.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."