Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
For many people the sticking point for nuclear power is, what do we do with the waste? We can “vitrify” the waste, but what do we do with it after that?
Figure 1. The process of “vitrification”. Liquid nuclear waste (solid fuel rods dissolved in acid) is converted into a solid glass like substance. Image Source
Unfortunately, the people in almost every country of the world have not been able to make up their minds what to do with the solidified nuclear waste. As a result, in almost every country it’s just sitting around. And nuclear material sitting around is dangerous. So here’s my brilliant plan. Nuclear lawn darts.
We have a pretty good idea what was happening on the bottom of the ocean millions of years ago. This is because there are places in the ocean where what you might think of as the local underwater climate never changes. It’s always cold. It’s always dark. There’s not much current. There is a continuous rain of very fine particles from the upper ocean. And it’s been like that for the last X million years.
We know that this has been the case for millions of years because we can take a core sample of the top layers of the thousands of feet of silt up at the top, and we can see that it has been undisturbed for that time. The conditions have not changed much year after year for millions of years. Every year a tiny amount is added to the thickness of the primordial ooze at the ocean floor.
Those spots in the mud at the ocean bottom seem to me to be ideally suited for the storage of nuclear waste. We know these areas are geologically stable on the multi-million year scale. It also gives us multiple layers of protection both from human interference, as well as from accidental release.
It is isolated from humans for the most obvious of reasons—it is way down at the bottom of the ocean.
It isolates any leak through the use of several redundant mechanisms. First the nuclear waste is already solidified. So in order for it to escape it would have to leach out of the solid glass. At that point it finds itself inside a sealed welded stainless steel container. However even the best of steels may develop some chemical corrosion. At that point it is encased in concrete. Suppose it gets through the concrete. Then it is still contained by the stainless steel outer container. Again, perhaps the outer container cracks. At that point the leaking radioactivity finds itself buried under 50 feet of silt and mud. And if somehow it manages to make it to the environment, it comes out in the best spot, the spot where radioactivity will do the least damage. That spot is the bottom of the ocean. Here’s why.
On land there are a number of scarce elements that are necessary for life. One of them is calcium. We needed for our bones and our teeth. So the bodies of land animals have developed special mechanisms that gather up these various scarce elements like calcium and concentrate them so we can use them in our bodies.
This makes for trouble. When radioactive elements enter the environment, our bodies avidly seek them out. We concentrate these radioactive elements, and they then damage our bodies.
The ocean, on the other hand, is a veritable stew of all kinds of chemical compounds. Take iodine as an example. Radioactive iodine on land is concentrated by our bodies and stored in our thyroid glands. And since there is so little iodine around on land, any radioactive iodine in the environment stands a good chance of being picked up by some living animal. Thus, it is dangerous.
In the ocean, however, iodine is quite common. It’s responsible for the “medicinal” smell of seaweed. There’s lots and lots of iodine in the ocean.
So where will a spill of radioactive iodine cause more damage? Obviously, the answer is on land. In the ocean, at the very bottom of the ocean, that radioactive iodine will be immediately diluted among millions and millions of atoms of iodine which are already there. This has two effects. First, the sea creatures use iodine as well—but they have no special mechanisms to pick it up and concentrate it because it exists all around them. Second, because of the large amount of natural iodine in the ocean, the concentration of radioactive iodine in the ocean is very low compared to natural abundance. So between the animals not concentrating the iodine, and the low and well-diluted levels of radioactive iodine within the reservoir of natural iodine, any release is much less dangerous in the ocean than on land. And for the obvious reasons of dilution and separation from the larger surface biosphere, a release is much less dangerous at the bottom of the ocean than at the top.
Now, how to get the nuclear waste down to the ocean bottom and bury it there? I propose a very low-tech method, using nuclear lawn darts. The plan is to seal two or three of the canisters of vitrified nuclear waste into what is in essence a giant stainless steel tuna fish. This tuna would be loaded aboard a large vessel. At a predetermined spot in the ocean it would be dropped over the side. If sophisticated steering is desired, that can be achieved through the use of steerable vanes. With proper hydrodynamic design, they should be capable of reaching reasonable speeds. This should be enough to bury them entirely in the mud at depth. (Naturally, a suitable site with appropriately soft silt, will need to be chosen.)
Figure 2 shows a cross-section drawing of what such a disposal system might look like. It is modeled after the shape of an oceanic tuna, which are capable of speeds up to 45 miles an hour (70 km/h). This should give it plenty of speed to be able to bury itself deeply in the ocean floor.
Figure 2. Cross section of a Nuclear Lawn Dart. The illustration shows the outer stainless steel shell, the inner concrete, and the stainless steel casks containing vitrified nuclear waste. Three individual containers are shown inside the dart. Background Graphic.
This design gives great strength and durability, and provides redundant levels of containment for the nuclear waste.
Figure 3. The process of dropping a nuclear dart.
Each nuclear dart will have a buoy to mark the location, attached to a short length of cable which will deploy automatically when the nuclear tuna strikes the ocean bottom. Each buoy will contain a transponder that can report back the condition (temperature, pressure) of the dart. These will allow that particular nuclear tuna to be located, identified, and retrieved as necessary. This would allow all nuclear darts to be retrieved quite simply by hooking onto the cable. That cable is connected to a lifting ring at the stern of the nuclear dart and which would serve to hoist directly up out of its resting place. If there were to be any radioactive leakage, it could be detected and the leaking and nuclear dart could be retrieved and fixed. Anyhow, that’s my bozo solution for how to deal with nuclear waste. Put it into a streamlined projectile, drop it over the side of a ship, and let it bury itself in the bottom of the ocean. What could be simpler?
Possible objections? One I can think of is the issue of heat. Radioactive decay gives off heat. How well this will be dispersed by the surrounding mud is an interesting question. However it doesn’t seem to be an unsolvable question. Simple experimentation will bring that to a quick resolution. That will give us the limitations on the number and amount and density of these kind of disposal units that the ocean floor can sustain. In addition, since each dart will be (relatively) cheap, we can reduce the concentration of the fuel in each dart and increase the number of darts. This will reduce the heat generated in each dart.
Another is the deceleration when the dart hits the ocean floor. Again, this can be measured (it will differ for each site) and the darts suitably engineered to resist the forces involved.
So. What are the possible objections to this scheme? All submissions gratefully accepted.
My best to all,
w.
[UPDATE] A number of people have said in comments that if I can retrieve them, someone else can too … a valid point. Scratch the retrieval cable, bury them and forget about them.
Silly idea – his Gore-ness has stated that the temperature below the mantle is millions of degrees so the steel dart would instantly melt and (even more) catastrophe would ensue.
/sarc off
So you want to take our radioactive nuclear material, put in the bottom of the ocean with a tracking beacon on it so any state or group can come along and get and do what they like with it. All because “nuclear material sitting around is dangerous” yet tossing it in the ocean and forgetting about it isn’t.
Not sure it’ll catch on myself.
Great post, Willis! Here’s my modest proposal.
Sandwich a small amount of silicates of cesium and strontium radioisotopes between circular lead sheets, and enclose the whole enchilada in a durable ceramic, such that each plate is approximately 10 inches (25.4 cm) in diameter. Then sell them to rich people. For the half-lives of the isotopes (approximately 30 years give or take), the plates would be guaranteed to keep the food warm, no matter how leisurely you eat! 🙂
Good idea EXCEPT that when Generation IV reactors come on line (which we would probably have had 20 years sooner if the idiotic hysterics of the Green movement hadn’t halted its development) we would be using this “waste” to produce electricity, and at the same time eliminating 99% of this material, the remaining 1% having a half life of a few hundred years.
So we should not be thinking of it as nuclear waste, but as future fuel.
How would our ancestors have solved a hazardous waste disposal problem 200 years ago? How will our progeny solve a hazardous waste disposal problem 200 years from now? Seems like your idea would work fine. Probably an overkill with an abundance of caution.
There is the matter of thorium-based traveling wave technology. Provided it offers the advantages it is said to, excess fuel from uranium-based nuclear plants may be consumed rather than stored if that is our preference.
Could this become the more suitable approach: elimination by consumption of hazardous material rather than robust storage techniques?
Yeah well I’d rather see this old, filthy technology completely abandoned, it’s time to pour money into future technology.
I think a good place to store this toxic crap is in the backyards of the nuclear power industry shill’s.
Starting with your backyard Anthony.
How about developing a means to completely deactivate it ?
OH, SORRY, THAT WOULD COST MONEY !!!
SO WHY NOT JUST HIDE IT ?
DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB
Pretty darn good !!!!!!!!!
Huh, that is exactly what I was thinking. Why not drop them into the Mariana Trench and just let them get sucked into the mantel? Seems simple enough to me.
Harry the Hacker says:
May 6, 2011 at 12:17 am
I agree. That is the biggest problem you will face: the wailers (apologies to the late great Bob Marley). The reason they are the biggest problem is because that is exactly what you want. The stuff should be dispersed as far and wide as possible, just as it was before we found it (mostly). As I understand it, for example, the average back yard has a higher concentration of uranium than most gold mines have of gold. It does not harm anyone because it is spread out. It is only ever dangerous in concentration.
Down there is a fair place, and cheap. I would consider old oil wells and coal mines too, but I do not know enough about it.
It could be retrieved by someone other than the owner and used for nefarious purposes. Just finish Yucca Mountain. That’s the solution. The waste will be easily retrievable there when we find a use for it, which we will.
Is there just too little mass to make a sealed block that stays at a constant temperature, with enough heat output to, say, heat my house?
An objection would be that we don’t have to dispose off the nuclear waste at all, as it is no “waste” but still an energy source for future generations of hopefully smarter people not scared of their own ingenuity. The ideas of how to convert “waste” to fuel are already there.
From Wikipedia on Integral Fast Reactors:
Willis. As I am a Warmist, nay a Hottist, I think your global warming ideas are mostly reckless but this idea seems brilliant. The subduction zone location suggestion makes the expensive multiple redundancies of glass, SS, concrete, SS possibly overkill.
Gen IV reactors of course are supposed to be able to use much of the high level waste as fuel so we should remember this before we end up going nuclear big style.
Personally, I think Big Nuke as a total solution still needs resisting for sustainability reasons because it is a method which would again, like OPEC/Big Oil/Big Coal, concentrate too much power in too few hands.
Thorium again. How you can deal with existing waste.
Yes, here it is on video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8
About 38 minutes in. The whole thing needs about 90 minutes, well worth it, all parliamentarians, congressmen/women should be forced to watch this and then answer an examination after, to prove they watched it.
It really is the future.
Somehow my last commet missed a part.
An objection would be that we don’t have to dispose of the nuclear waste at all as it is no “waste” but still an energy source for future generations of hopefully smarter people not scared of their own ingenuity. The ideas of how to convert “waste” to fuel to non radioactive waste are already there
From Wikipedia on Integral Fast Reactors:
“Breeder reactors can “burn” some nuclear waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), which could turn a liability into an asset. Another major waste component, fission products, would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity in a few centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years. The fact that 4th generation reactors are being designed to use the waste from 3rd generation plants could change the nuclear story fundamentally—potentially making the combination of 3rd and 4th generation plants a more attractive energy option than 3rd generation by itself would have been, both from the perspective of waste management and energy security.”
Or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
and after Generation 4 comes 5 and burns the “waste” of Generation 4 reactors… and so on… until there is no more redioactive waste but only Lead.
It is interesting, but why waste all that fuel? How about getting George Monboit to explain to the EPA why 15 mrem per year is ridiculously conservative and the NRC’s 100 mrem/yr is just fine, then we can store the fuel at Yucca Mountain.
As I recall from grade school at the beginning of the 60’s, we were shown a film on nuclear energy. In that film they talked about waste. They showed disposal AT SEA. It appeared to be an aircraft carrier (most likly waste generated from weapons manufacture) and the men on the deck of the ship were rolling 55 gallon drums off its edge into the depths of the ocean. You might want to investigate what the military did back in the 50’s and 60’s. Makes perfect sense.
At one time in my life (25 years ago) I renovated the AEC’s Environmental Measurements Lab space which is located in Lower Manhatten ( A remnent of the Manhatten Project). They had samples (soil, etc.) from every Nuclear blast that the US had performed, stored in the basement of the building. They performed experiments on the effects of nuclear exposure. They had very sensitive equipment, so sensitive that when we drilled a hole in some concrete ofr block wall the Radon equipment would go bananas.
They also told me stories about contamination of labs at Columbia University (another Manhatten Project location). What I took away from all this is there are good and bad ways of handling the Waste. I think your Idea is on the good side.
I have a major objection – sufficient to stop the proposal in its tracks.
The problem is that it will work.
In fact, there’s nothing especially clever about this proposal, and many others, working. There are no great engineering problems with nuclear waste storage, disposal or re-use. The problems are political.
Nuclear Waste is the major political argument which is used by the anti brigade to stop nuclear power stations. So it is critical to their political existence that the ‘problem’ of waste is unanswerable. You will find that if you advance this proposal it will be shouted down by technically incompetent arguments, as has happened so often before to all the earlier proposals. All kinds of blocking techniques will be used to prevent any consideration of the proposal, let alone any testing or funding.
Apart from that, the proposal is fine…
One particular problem comes to mind: Greenpeaze terrorists. They don’t wont to store anything, nor recycle anything.
I think they prefer the soviet method, which was pretty much the same it seems as you propose but with a cheaper twist: Bury the crap in a backyard country and run like hell.
Glen of Aus says: “it’s really just a matter of time before some Genius Physicist discovers some property of some sub-atomic particle which can be used to de-radioactivate stuff …. then we won’t have any problems with Nuclear Power”
This would be true if we spent most of the research money on nukes instead of the widely proven failures of the greens.
Take the ‘gazillion’ dollars the world spends each year on researching inefficient land hogs like solar panels and windmills and spend it on the safe and most viable future energy …… nuclear power.
When we do this I will believe the pols and eco nuts want a clean planet AND energy in the future.
to sunspot: you need to wake up…nuclear power is the best way to go if we are to have the energy necessary for an expanding population and economy.
People live longer with electricity and the things it provides.
Research on this idea was done thirty years ago. It’s all very workable so the real problems are a variety of political concerns and overcoming fear due to ignorance.
I have a modest proposal. This waste product still has enormous energy potential. Solar cells are designed to use the wavelengths from light to create electricity. If we could devise a radiation cell that reacts to the wavelengths coming off these waste products, we could capture this energy. The waste would need to be packaged in thin flat containers, to maximize surface area. Then these thin packages could be stacked up, alternating the radiation cells with the waste cells. We would end up with a power source that would last a very long time.
Ryan@2:49a.m.
‘The problem is the spent fuel rods are 1% Plutonium which is highly toxic as well as being radioactive. That needs to be kept well away from the human food chain and a volcano at the bottom of the deep ocean sounds like a great place.’
Your suggestion of spreading ball bearing size pellets across an area is a very interesting one, on a number of levels, but you may want to rethink your last para.
Not highly toxic – if swallowed, it is poorly absorbed, if at all. Caffeine is more toxic. It is inhalation that is dangerous.
It’s an alpha emitter, so a sheet of paper will shield it effectively, let alone 6000 feet of water. A household smoke detector has more radio-toxicity from it’s detector cell.
I’m not sure how it would get into the food chain, as plutonium oxide is just about insoluble in water, and I doubt the fishies regard it as a desirable food source. Nuclear fishin’?
I have to agree with E G Smith. In the future it will be viable to reprocess nuclear waste to extract useful material.
In 1904-5 there were huge dumps of waste ore around Broken Hill, Australia. The invention of flotation (note flotation was only introduced in US around 1911 and Hoover had nothing to do with it) not only made the mines profitable with development of a new source of zinc but lead to a revolution in minerals processing, lower priced metals and a leap in metal resources (there is no peak copper or gold or any metal). Political barriers and subsidies lead to distortion of innovation, technical development and research. As with the development of flotation Governments should keep out of scientific and engineering activities.