[Unknown Target]

I heard somewhere that a lot of the nuclear waste being stored could be recycled into new reactor fuel? Is that true? It doesn't make sense that we'd store it instead of reusing it in that case.

I've noticed this discussion has left out the problem of nuclear waste in regards to nuclear safety, though I guess it's not technically about that specific area. Maybe if things got bad enough with coal and oil, or education in general about radiation and nuclear power were improved, people would be more willing to use nuclear power. On the flipside, that does generate more waste product. The best option for disposal IMO is to shoot it into the sun, but people are very risk adverse and rockets have an occasional tendency to detonate in mid-air. Still, with the amount of launches that go off without a problem, I'd say it's a reasonable risk to take. Thoughts on the nuclear waste issue?

[Bobboau]

1) doing so is potentially hazardous, though not by much compared to every other aspect of nuclear energy
2) it's presently more expensive than just digging up new material, but this is due to...
3) it's a relatively new technology.

[Grizzly]

We're storing it untill it gets cheaper .

[Kosh]

I've noticed this discussion has left out the problem of nuclear waste in regards to nuclear safety, though I guess it's not technically about that specific area.

Maybe it left out that problem because it isn't a problem.

[Grizzly]

I've noticed this discussion has left out the problem of nuclear waste in regards to nuclear safety, , though I guess it's not technically about that specific area.

This thread was started because of JCDNWarrior saying that a million people died because of Chernobyl (and that Fukushima's radioactive fallout was apperently dangerous to the US, though I might have misread that bit). So no, it does not technically fall into this specific area.
But who cares! Lets just talk about it anyway

Maybe it left out that problem because it isn't a problem.

Isn't the question on where to dump nuclear waste a rather big problem?

[Klaustrophobia]

I heard somewhere that a lot of the nuclear waste being stored could be recycled into new reactor fuel? Is that true? It doesn't make sense that we'd store it instead of reusing it in that case.

I've noticed this discussion has left out the problem of nuclear waste in regards to nuclear safety, though I guess it's not technically about that specific area. Maybe if things got bad enough with coal and oil, or education in general about radiation and nuclear power were improved, people would be more willing to use nuclear power. On the flipside, that does generate more waste product. The best option for disposal IMO is to shoot it into the sun, but people are very risk adverse and rockets have an occasional tendency to detonate in mid-air. Still, with the amount of launches that go off without a problem, I'd say it's a reasonable risk to take. Thoughts on the nuclear waste issue?

yes, fuel can be recycled.  it isn't because the government doesn't allow it. 
shooting waste into the sun is completely unnecessary.  waste storage is only thought to be a problem because of the massive NIMBY response.  we don't really even need a large site yet.  all the waste we have now from the 40 odd years of running nuclear plants is stored on-site in pools or concrete casks.

[Kosh]

Isn't the question on where to dump nuclear waste a rather big problem?

Only because of environmentalist fear mongering combined with massive scientific illiteracy.

we don't really even need a large site yet.  all the waste we have now from the 40 odd years of running nuclear plants is stored on-site in pools or concrete casks.

We had one in Yucca mountain, and it was almost finished but then it was canned by Obama.

[Nuke]

what we should do is take all the nuclear waste in the world and put it into a big pile, then nuke it.

[JCDNWarrior]

what we should do is take all the nuclear waste in the world and put it into a big pile, then nuke it.

And then turn off all radiation detectors and claim everything is safe A good way to kill everyone off in time, Nuke. Though the depleted uranium in ammunition and bombs does a lot to help already.

What are people's ideas for alternatives though? I keep hearing about Thorium (sp?) reactors or salt water reactors, someone brought it up to me when Fukushima happened. Or should we stick to what we have?

[Nuke]

what we should do is take all the nuclear waste in the world and put it into a big pile, then nuke it.

And then turn off all radiation detectors and claim everything is safe A good way to kill everyone off in time, Nuke. Though the depleted uranium in ammunition and bombs does a lot to help already.

What are people's ideas for alternatives though? I keep hearing about Thorium (sp?) reactors or salt water reactors, someone brought it up to me when Fukushima happened. Or should we stick to what we have?

fail.

uranium isnt very radioactive by itself, provided its not undergoing fission, du is even less so. it is however very chemically toxic.

du is used for weapons for 2 reasons:
1: high density
2: its pyrophoric

there just arent many substitutions that meet both requirements. you can get desnity with lead, but you loose the ability to have it liquify and jet out on impact and reduce its effectiveness at penetrating armor, allowing it to cook canned meat.

[castor]

The best option for disposal IMO is to shoot it into the sun, but people are very risk adverse and rockets have an occasional tendency to detonate in mid-air. Still, with the amount of launches that go off without a problem, I'd say it's a reasonable risk to take.

I wouldn't bet on it being reasonable. You'd have to make 100% sure rockets never detonate, or that the waste is fully contained if they do. This and the amount of launches needed would make it all extremely expensive.

[Nuke]

The best option for disposal IMO is to shoot it into the sun, but people are very risk adverse and rockets have an occasional tendency to detonate in mid-air. Still, with the amount of launches that go off without a problem, I'd say it's a reasonable risk to take.

I wouldn't bet on it being reasonable. You'd have to make 100% sure rockets never detonate, or that the waste is fully contained if they do. This and the amount of launches needed would make it all extremely expensive.

waste of potential fuel, id rather see any viable material be used for rtgs for space probes than simply thrown away somewhere you will never be able to recover it.

[JCDNWarrior]

what we should do is take all the nuclear waste in the world and put it into a big pile, then nuke it.

And then turn off all radiation detectors and claim everything is safe A good way to kill everyone off in time, Nuke. Though the depleted uranium in ammunition and bombs does a lot to help already.

What are people's ideas for alternatives though? I keep hearing about Thorium (sp?) reactors or salt water reactors, someone brought it up to me when Fukushima happened. Or should we stick to what we have?

fail.

uranium isnt very radioactive by itself, provided its not undergoing fission, du is even less so. it is however very chemically toxic.

du is used for weapons for 2 reasons:
1: high density
2: its pyrophoric

there just arent many substitutions that meet both requirements. you can get desnity with lead, but you loose the ability to have it liquify and jet out on impact and reduce its effectiveness at penetrating armor, allowing it to cook canned meat.

I know, DU has good uses, but at first was a type of specialized munition from the cold war only meant for if a war with Russia would start, with the T-72s and other tanks rolling into Europe, and there was a lot of resistance to it's implementation. Since after 2000 it was declared safe for use and started to be used as primary ammunition even in Afghanistan and Iraq with no enemy tanks to be found since the invasions.

[Polpolion]

I know, DU has good uses, but at first was a type of specialized munition from the cold war only meant for if a war with Russia would start, with the T-72s and other tanks rolling into Europe, and there was a lot of resistance to it's implementation. Since after 2000 it was declared safe for use and started to be used as primary ammunition even in Afghanistan and Iraq with no enemy tanks to be found since the invasions.

Safe... for use?

[Mars]

DU is nearly twice as dense as lead. . . and it isn't used because of its flammability. Tungsten is a drop in replacement for DU in munitions, but it is much more expensive.

[Grizzly]

Isn't the question on where to dump nuclear waste a rather big problem?

Only because of environmentalist fear mongering combined with massive scientific illiteracy.

So scientifically lecture us then, since I am eager for arguments to throw at my brothers .

[Astronomiya]

1) doing so is potentially hazardous, though not by much compared to every other aspect of nuclear energy
2) it's presently more expensive than just digging up new material, but this is due to...
3) it's a relatively new technology.

1)Sure, but it's really just running another reactor.
2)See 1.
3)Nope.  Nuclear reprocessing has been done almost since the beginning of nuclear energy.  It wasn't banned in the US until Carter issued an executive order in 1978 (?).  It's still done by basically everyone else in the world that operates NPPs, or they have contracts with another country that does it for them.

[NGTM-1R]

DU is nearly twice as dense as lead. . . and it isn't used because of its flammability. Tungsten is a drop in replacement for DU in munitions, but it is much more expensive.

Not quite. It lacks the self-sharpening quality of DU, so tungsten would not perform as well as DU in the armor-piercing role. Tungsten has generally replaced DU in the non-armor-piercing roles (Phalanx CIWS rounds come to mind), but DU is going to remain in any task that might require the armor-piercing role for the foreseeable future.

(Also the suggestion it's not used because it's flammable is laughable at best, if you have to kill a tank, you want to kill it with an ammo explosion if you can because it'll never get fixed.)

[Nuke]

DU is nearly twice as dense as lead. . . and it isn't used because of its flammability. Tungsten is a drop in replacement for DU in munitions, but it is much more expensive.

yea instead of cooking occupants of armored targets alive, you rip em to shreds with a hard round bouncing around inside the tank or whatever. very humane. du works well because as soon as it is hit with a reasonable amount of ke (relative to the round of course), it instantly vaporises and expands. this expansion cools it down and it condenses as a liquid, all of which happens in about the time it takes to burn through the armor, so you get heat and pressure followed by a spray of hot metal upon the aforementioned canned meat.

[Mars]

Ahha. . . I must listen to the History Channel more critically