A Modest Proposal for Nuclear Waste Disposal

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.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
166 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dena
May 6, 2011 6:23 am

I hate all ideas where we intend to store the waste forever or throw away something that can still be useful. At best we can’t be trusted to keep track of the waste for more than a few hundred years. The waste could be and currently is in other countries reprocessed and reused. The best solution is a fast neutron reactor that will leave products which can be safe in as little as 100 years. Not only will we stop producing waste but we can burn what we already have reducing the stock pile instead of expanding it and reduce the long term risk of somebody recovering it and not knowing what it is.

beng
May 6, 2011 6:25 am

Willis, my thoughts about this are very similar.
Simply find an ocean bottom where the sedimentation rate is very high (the deposit areas out from the Mississippi delta in the Gulf of Mexico are OK). The “torpedo” is quickly covered, and continues to get further covered as time goes by.
Of course, radioactive “waste” is valuable & should be reprocessed & used in breeder reactors, but that’s a different issue.

May 6, 2011 6:41 am

As far as I know the USS Scorpion and Thresher containment vessels are still on the bottom of the ocean so we have a “test” platform in place to evaluate some of the plan. I have not heard of any leak from them if they are down at the bottom.

Francisco
May 6, 2011 7:02 am

The best thing to do with nuclear power in its present state is to phase it out as soon as possible. That Fukushima has all but disappeared from the main news does not mean, unfortunately, that it has stopped doing what it will continue to do for who knows how long: relieving itself on the ocean, the ground and the air through all its unplugable orifices. An un-insurable industry that whenever things go badly wrong creates such long lived messess as Chernobyl and Fukushima cannot reasonably be called either cheap or safe.
This site keeps pretty good track of what is going on there, with information you don’t get in any of the main media, which is supposed to be oh so “religiously” anti-nuclear:
http://enenews.com/

pyromancer76
May 6, 2011 7:21 am

Willis, excellent discussion as usual. Plus, plus, plus an intelligent discussion from WUWT’s great commenters about all the problems and possibilities. I like the caution: if “we” can retrieve it, “others” can. I also like the fact that much of the usefulness of an energy resource remains, to be used again, and again, and again.
I think we should not scoff too easily at: if-not-“politicized”, then-an-easy-solution argument. First, dumping anything at sea is a huge, huge (problem) issue; second, if we have any belief in representative democracy, then we must explain, educate, and persuade — not force. Here, because of great minds with magnificent technological know-how. (Try checking changes to the “theory” of plate tectonics; settled knowledge might be upended, no pun intended. Recycled to the depths? Maybe, maybe not.). Third and forth are above.
Sometimes, the inaction caused by people mulling over possibilities and not being able to come toan easy consensus conclusions is not so bad. Afterall, that is supposed to be the pattern provided by the American Constitution. Finally, I view WUWT as one of the premiere examples of continuous “explain, educate, and persuade”. Willis, thanks.

red432
May 6, 2011 7:22 am

Does it have to be that complicated? Why not just mix the stuff with an immense amount of sand and then use electricity to turn the sand into glass and bury it? I heard someone make a proposal like this about 20 years ago and I still don’t see what is wrong with it.

jaymam
May 6, 2011 7:25 am

What if one of the nuclear darts falls on top of another one at high speed, and both of them break open?
How about putting the waste on land and using it to heat water and glasshouses to grow crops in winter or to heat cities?
How about putting the waste back near the uranium mines where it came from?

vboring
May 6, 2011 7:34 am

I don’t get the fascination with millennial storage. Do people imagine that humanity will forget the stuff is there? Or that we’ll wipe ourselves out of existence and somehow still care where the radioactive waste is?
Why not just assume that we’ll find either a use for the stuff or a way to destroy it in a hundred years or so?
Then all you have to do is store it for a hundred years and fairly simple concrete encasement would be good enough for that.
Sending it to the bottom of the ocean probably won’t happen because of marketing problems.

May 6, 2011 7:44 am

To all the people promoting Thorium liquid sodium cycle reactors:
Prove to me that a fire in the chemical plant that continuously reprocess the fuel salt has no chance to release concerning amount of radioactive isotopes into the environment. Fire and Radioactivity makes my palms sweat. Words like “Sodium salts” don’t make them any drier.
I like the phyisics of the Thorium reactors. I’m not so sure about the chemistry

Gator
May 6, 2011 7:44 am

I have to agree with Mike Bromley, forget retrieval. Bury it deep in a well defined area we can afford to write off.

harrywr2
May 6, 2011 7:46 am

Recycling is the answer…

DirkH
May 6, 2011 7:49 am

Janice says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:55 am
“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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_battery

Richard Wright
May 6, 2011 7:55 am

First read about this years ago in the book “Trashing the Planet”. It’s always seemed to me to be the best and simplest solution. Pretty hard for some terrorist to go down to the Challenger Deep to get it. And radiation after dilution in the immense volume of the ocean is hardly a problem. And I certainly wouldn’t worry about heat – geothermal vents don’t seem to be a problem. Of course, maybe the heat will attract sea critters and they will mutate and we might get giant squid or octopus or worms – oh, wait, we already have those.

lateintheday
May 6, 2011 7:56 am

Better way . . .
Split the waste into small portions. For each portion dig a big hole and cover it with a few hundred tons of concrete. Mark each burial with some sort of structure for retrieval purposes. In case of radioactive leakage into the atmosphere it might be wise to install a means of dispersal – a fan like structure of somekind. This would need to be quite tall for maximum dispersal – at least 400ft. Finally, for security purposes it would be a good idea to build say 10 dummie structures for each real one. That way, the nasty people will never find the real stuff.
The only downside is of course, that we would be left with thousands of these very tall, fanlike structures dotted around, with most of them not actually doing anything . . .
hang on a minute!

May 6, 2011 8:01 am

My solution would be to toss the stuff into the Sun. But, until we have more foolproof methods of getting them into space, my idea wouldn’t be accepted.

Rick Lynch
May 6, 2011 8:13 am

Or we could just switch to Thorium bed reactors and skip the whole problem.

G. Karst
May 6, 2011 8:16 am

“Spent” fuel is not waste, nor is it spent. Irradiated fuel has undergone transformation, due to neutron absorption and build up of fission fragments. Most of these elements are neutron absorbers which kill the yeast of fission, by neutron starvation.
While we may decide, irradiated fuel has no value (waste), future generations may desperately require these valuable resources. They should NOT be disposed, using methods, which make them absolutely irretrievably. It is not necessary. GK

Snotrocket
May 6, 2011 8:16 am

@Sunspot: (As you like shouting): As they say in Britain: PILLOCK!

exNOAAman
May 6, 2011 8:20 am

Janice says:
“…We would end up with a power source that would last a very long time….”
-.-.-.-.-.-
And…It wouldn’t go out at night.

phlogiston
May 6, 2011 8:22 am

Nick Palmer says:
May 6, 2011 at 4:43 am

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.
I am also pro a nuclear solution, its rationale is inescapable as even George Monbiot concedes; however it is ideally a provider of baseline power, not peak. As the Chernobyl operators discovered, nuclear power plants dont like having their power output changed rapidly. A nuke plant likes to be left alone to churn out power at a constant level. So even enthusiastic pro-nukers like me do not propose nuclear generation as a total provision of electricity, only of baseline. This is unfortunate economically since baseline is cheaper than peak. But peak provision needs other solutions.

banjo
May 6, 2011 8:51 am

Dr Kirk Sorenson discusses liquid thorium reactors with foxy Dr Kiki.

Alan the Brit
May 6, 2011 8:55 am

John Marshall says:
May 6, 2011 at 2:15 am
It would seem that these ‘lawn darts’ with a convenient lifting eye would be an ideal target fot terrorists to get hold of nuclear material. This would supply material for a Dirty Bomb to contaminate a city for thousands of years.
Not a well thought out solution I am afraid.
At the depths we’re talking about here, & taking into account the equipment needed fro retrieval, they would be pretty conspicuous on the high seas or in the near shore seas. Also one must assume they have the means to drill into the casing, the concrete, & chip off enough vitrified spent fuel – no uranium or plutonium I am reliably told. It would be more economic for a terrorist to join a uranium mining company & steal some ore & refine it themselves!

Admin
May 6, 2011 9:06 am

But what if the Glomar Challenger falls into the hands of Al Qaeda?
😉
Simple, elegant, just might work, except for the zealots who will claim it will damage the sea.

Victor Shorrocks
May 6, 2011 9:10 am

There are many reasons for believing that humans can benefit from low level whole body radiation. The evidence comes from Hiroshima, Chernobyl and health studies on workers at Nuclear Power plant to list just a few. The benefits are longer lives and reduced incidence of various cancers. It is difficult to get the phenomenon of Radiation Hormesis (try Google) accepted and understood and I think it will take many years for the textbooks to be rewritten. Nevertheless there are reasons for saying that man is deficient in radiation and could benefit from having his background radiation dose supplemented. It is postulated that the DNA repair mechanisms are stimulated by the radiation.
Does anyone have any ideas as to how nuclear waste could be “packaged” and used ?
For instance could something be built into the foundations for a house??
I understand that there are clinics in Japan using whole body low level radiation for the treatment of some cancers. But I know of no interest in this therapy in Europe or the US. Any information would be valuable in order to stimulate discussion.

DCC
May 6, 2011 9:17 am

Espen said:

… building thorium reactors capable of burning highly active nuclear waste still sounds more like a win-win solution to me!

I second that motion. Discarding this valuable source of energy is a terrible waste of resources. Nor is the dart solution new and unique. It has even been proposed for use in salt domes.