News:

PD.com - you don't even believe in nihilism anymore

Main Menu

So, Fukushima...

Started by Mesozoic Mister Nigel, April 21, 2012, 06:18:55 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Cainad (dec.)

DUMB, ILL-CONCEIVED IDEA: Send it all to Mars so that future Mars missions have a potential power supply.

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 05:03:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:58:57 PM
What are the two safe disposal methods?

1.  Put the waste in silica & lead, and fuse the sand into glass, stack blocks out in the salt flats, or

2.  Dig a 2 mile bore hole, and drop the shit down.  Given time, it will eventually pass into the Earth's mantle, where most of the world's radioactives are.

Both methods allow you to recover the material, which might be important.  If it's hot, it still has energy, and we might need that later.

Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:58:57 PM
I would absolutely so not be at all down with space-based nuclear. Holy shit. What's the rationale there? I can't even see how it would be managed, and anything that's in orbit is at risk of, at some point, coming down. Adding a massive layer of shit that could go catastrophically wrong to something that can go catastrophically wrong seems to be, putting it mildly, not a good idea.

Depends how you do it.  Any real space platform would be at a Lagrange point, and would thus never come down unless you made it come down.

Isn't the glass-fusing angle a relatively recent development that's still being explored because the logistics of actually doing it are a bit more complicated than they sound? I remember reading about that fairly recently.

I had to look up Lagrange point, and while theoretically that does solve the problem of a nuclear power plant space station coming down, I have to ask... what use is a nuclear power plant space station, other than to power other stuff that's in space? The logistics and insane expense of getting everything there are one thing... how is that power going to be transported to Earth? It sounds like one of those interesting theoretical "well maybe someday we'll have the technology to make it economically feasible" scenarios.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Doktor Howl

Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 05:03:04 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:58:57 PM
What are the two safe disposal methods?

1.  Put the waste in silica & lead, and fuse the sand into glass, stack blocks out in the salt flats, or

2.  Dig a 2 mile bore hole, and drop the shit down.  Given time, it will eventually pass into the Earth's mantle, where most of the world's radioactives are.

Both methods allow you to recover the material, which might be important.  If it's hot, it still has energy, and we might need that later.

Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 04:58:57 PM
I would absolutely so not be at all down with space-based nuclear. Holy shit. What's the rationale there? I can't even see how it would be managed, and anything that's in orbit is at risk of, at some point, coming down. Adding a massive layer of shit that could go catastrophically wrong to something that can go catastrophically wrong seems to be, putting it mildly, not a good idea.

Depends how you do it.  Any real space platform would be at a Lagrange point, and would thus never come down unless you made it come down.

Isn't the glass-fusing angle a relatively recent development that's still being explored because the logistics of actually doing it are a bit more complicated than they sound? I remember reading about that fairly recently.

The idea was first thought up at a science fiction convention in the early 60s.  They proposed it to the NRC, who told them to shit in their hat and leave this sort of thing to the experts.


Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 06:11:14 PM
I had to look up Lagrange point, and while theoretically that does solve the problem of a nuclear power plant space station coming down, I have to ask... what use is a nuclear power plant space station, other than to power other stuff that's in space? The logistics and insane expense of getting everything there are one thing... how is that power going to be transported to Earth? It sounds like one of those interesting theoretical "well maybe someday we'll have the technology to make it economically feasible" scenarios.

It's for powering stuff in space.  Beats the hell out of shipping up tanks of liquid fuel stock.

Or for beaming power down via laser or microwave to collection points on the Earth.  That's feasible right now, but not really efficient...And it has one really nasty application (Someone pissing you off?  Shift the beam over their cities).
Molon Lube

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

I know that there is at least one company that embeds nuclear waste in glass. However, I believe there are some pretty serious logistical problems with embedding spent fuel rods in glass.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Doktor Howl

Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:04:44 PM
I know that there is at least one company that embeds nuclear waste in glass. However, I believe there are some pretty serious logistical problems with embedding spent fuel rods in glass.

I'm sure there are.  Materials handling is never simple, especially when the material is radioactive and also toxic as hell.
Molon Lube

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

But I'm sure that the sci-fi guys who came up with it know better than the nuclear scientists at the NRC. :lulz:
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

And it's not like 3300 is hotter than the liquidity point for glass. Or quartz.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Doktor Howl

#52
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:08:25 PM
But I'm sure that the sci-fi guys who came up with it know better than the nuclear scientists at the NRC. :lulz:

*shrug*

Two of the science fiction writers had PhDs in physics.

EDIT:  One of them (Benford) had a PhD, the other (Bova) had a degree in material science.

Molon Lube

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

I'm sorry, I'm being a dick. But it does sound an awful lot like "guy goes up to expert panel and proposes an overly simplistic version of something expert panel has already spent years working on". Having a PhDs in physics doesn't make someone a nuclear physicist, and for that matter being a nuclear physicist doesn't qualify them as an expert in handling waste.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Mesozoic Mister Nigel

And, I spent a few minutes looking at papers on deep-bore disposal and apparently they've unsuccessfully been trying to figure out a good way to do that for decades.

If a solution to a very serious problem sounds simple on the surface, and yet isn't being implemented, in general I've found that it's because it's much more complicated than it sounds. For that reason, I'm extremely skeptical of simplistic solutions to complicated problems.

Sort of like how Mike the Engineer has all kinds of great ideas.
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."


Doktor Howl

Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:18:07 PM
I'm sorry, I'm being a dick. But it does sound an awful lot like "guy goes up to expert panel and proposes an overly simplistic version of something expert panel has already spent years working on". Having a PhDs in physics doesn't make someone a nuclear physicist, and for that matter being a nuclear physicist doesn't qualify them as an expert in handling waste.

I just edited:  Upon checking, only one of them had the PhD.

In any case, the NRC isn't exactly composed of experts, either...Their boss is a theoretical physics geek.  Also, they're under fire from the Union of Concerned Scientists for doing basically fuck all about the waste issue.  Hell, they've had 4 decades to work on it, and the best they could manage was Yucca mountain.  Barrels in a cave near an aquifer on a fault line.

I'm thinking you could get the dingbat that wrote Twilight, and do a better job.
Molon Lube

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:22:24 PM
Sort of like how Mike the Engineer has all kinds of great ideas.

Filthy Assistant, you mean.  Mike has no ideas, and won't tolerate them from anyone else, either.

   :lulz:
Molon Lube

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:22:24 PM
If a solution to a very serious problem sounds simple on the surface, and yet isn't being implemented, in general I've found that it's because it's much more complicated than it sounds. For that reason, I'm extremely skeptical of simplistic solutions to complicated problems.

Assuredly.  Remember that I am a maintenance geek; all is complication.

But going to the moon was complicated.  So is eye surgery.  So was the development of the reactors themselves.

Question I have is, how much funding has the borehole approach gotten?  It is my experience that you can smash any complications with a project (that isn't actually impossible) with enough applied cash & expertise.

Of course, if we DID that, we couldn't afford 12 shiny carrier groups to save us when Zombie Tojo comes back for a terrible revenge.
Molon Lube

Doktor Howl

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 07:33:30 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:22:24 PM
If a solution to a very serious problem sounds simple on the surface, and yet isn't being implemented, in general I've found that it's because it's much more complicated than it sounds. For that reason, I'm extremely skeptical of simplistic solutions to complicated problems.

Assuredly.  Remember that I am a maintenance geek; all is complication.

But going to the moon was complicated.  So is eye surgery.  So was the development of the reactors themselves.

Question I have is, how much funding has the borehole approach gotten?  It is my experience that you can smash any complications with a project (that isn't actually impossible) with enough applied cash & expertise.

Of course, if we DID that, we couldn't afford 12 shiny carrier groups to save us when Zombie Tojo comes back for a terrible revenge.

Also, the above post explains why alternate energy won't be taken seriously until it's too late.
Molon Lube

Mesozoic Mister Nigel

Quote from: Doktor Howl on April 24, 2012, 07:24:11 PM
Quote from: Nigel on April 24, 2012, 07:18:07 PM
I'm sorry, I'm being a dick. But it does sound an awful lot like "guy goes up to expert panel and proposes an overly simplistic version of something expert panel has already spent years working on". Having a PhDs in physics doesn't make someone a nuclear physicist, and for that matter being a nuclear physicist doesn't qualify them as an expert in handling waste.

I just edited:  Upon checking, only one of them had the PhD.

In any case, the NRC isn't exactly composed of experts, either...Their boss is a theoretical physics geek.  Also, they're under fire from the Union of Concerned Scientists for doing basically fuck all about the waste issue.  Hell, they've had 4 decades to work on it, and the best they could manage was Yucca mountain.  Barrels in a cave near an aquifer on a fault line.

I'm thinking you could get the dingbat that wrote Twilight, and do a better job.

That's a good point. The NRC doesn't come up with disposal plans, do they? They just approve plans submitted by contractors? So it would be up to the contractors to come up with a functioning disposal proposal? I don't typically find the Free Market adequate to handle these kinds of things, either.

And then there is the issue of location, which seems to be largely decided by who is desperate enough (or overridable enough) to accept waste that will make vast regions lethally toxic for ninety thousand years.

All of this is kind of reinforcing my original opinion on the matter...
"I'm guessing it was January 2007, a meeting in Bethesda, we got a bag of bees and just started smashing them on the desk," Charles Wick said. "It was very complicated."