Mike Beversluis

Friday, November 07, 2008

Mr Burns seeks curb-appeal


Extreme Makeover: Nuclear Power Plant Edition


As the world seeks low-carbon forms of energy production to reduce the emissions blamed for global warming, the champions of nuclear power have been re-branding the industry as one of the world’s greenest.

Last month, the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency said “nuclear energy is virtually carbon-free” across its life cycle and “the only carbon-mitigating technology with a proven track record on the scale required.”

Now, more than two decades after accidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, some people in the industry are backing a makeover for nuclear power stations in an effort to transform the industry from an industrial pariah to an environmental savior.

My suggestion - granite counter tops and home theater rooms. Perhaps radiant floor heating if you really want to go top end.

But those small tweaks aside, I think a lot of their work is done, since people aren't so terrified of nuclear weapons that they are digging bomb shelters in their back yards, and the hype about nuclear-powered everything that went on during the fifties is also gone, so that there aren't unrealistic expectations either.

Of course, long term radioactive waste is still a problem. Currently, Europe handles this through breeder reactors, which works fine if you are able to secure the high weapons grade residue. I was talking with a friend who works in a laser fusion lab, and he mentioned that one of the proposals going forward, from the NIF team I think, is to use high powered lasers to burn and process radiative waste through inertial confinement. So the goal wouldn't be net-positive gain fusion, but just the disposal of waste material from fusion plants. Which is a much more feasible task. There would still be end products, but they would have radioactive half-life's of a hundred years or so, which is a lot more managable than the hundred thousand years of the original waste. It's hard to plan on time-scales that will experience geological change.

Labels:

3 Comments:

  • Of course, long term radioactive waste is still a problem.

    Why?

    It seems to me that vitrifying the waste into streamlined shapes, then dropping them into an oceanic subduction zone would be completely safe, and be the ultimate in recycling.

    By Blogger Hey Skipper, at 11 November, 2008 17:31  

  • Well, a breeder reactor's final output includes plutonium, which is valuable enough for weapons that someone would probably go looking for it on that ocean floor. Or at least that's my understanding.

    Otherwise, yes.

    By Blogger Mike Beversluis, at 12 November, 2008 15:55  

  • Good luck on that.

    Subduction zones are deep, and if the the waste was enclosed in a streamlined penetrator, it would bury itself hundreds of feet deep in the ocean bottom.

    But even if someone did want it badly enough to look for it, the surface presence would be blindingly obvious.

    I have never heard of this idea anywhere other than in my intra-cranial echoes.

    Seems bloody obvious; what am I missing?

    By Blogger Hey Skipper, at 13 November, 2008 17:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home