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.
Last I heard, the simplest long-term storage solution is “big-billet” vitrification. You take the current relatively-small billets, and embed each of them inside a much larger billet of leaded glass. For the sake of argument, let’s say that “much larger” means about the size of a standard shipping container (boxcar-sized, roughly).
The resulting billets are physically robust, exceedingly stable, and are large and heavy enough that they require *serious* heavy equipment to move around. After that, just bury them in a field, just about anywhere. Leaching isn’t a problem — cube-square law is your friend. Radioactivity isn’t a problem, for the same reason. And security is no big deal, either. No need for barbed wire, armed guards, etc.! The equipment required to move one of these suckers is really *really* hard to miss, so all you need is to be sure that someone would *notice* and call the cops. You’d have *days* to respond in.
It’s also very very safe. No need for security of geologic time. Careful studies of very old glass (Egyptian glass that’s over 3K years old, for example) show that the big billets are plenty robust. Radiation and toxicity are incredibly low. You could just stick one under the foundation of each new federal building, or each newly built grade school — really! I’m not kidding. Heck — put one in (actually, under) *my* back yard. As long as you pay me for the disruption and inconvenience of putting it there, I’d be fine with it. There’s really no sound cause for concern.
After writing the above, I feel compelled to note that although it’s simple and effective, it remains the wrong solution. High level radioactive “waste” isn’t a *problem*, it’s a valuable resource! Don’t dump it in the ocean… we’re going to want that stuff in the future!
And low-level waste isn’t a problem either — most of it is less radioactive and less toxic than the bricks my house is built from. Alternatively, you could view it as being *far* less radioactive than the granite facade of your local bank/courthouse/library/museum/whatever.
The real problem isn’t the radioactive material! The real problem is the *nucular* *paranoia* exhibited by most of the public. (Misspelling of ‘nuclear’ entirely intentional!). Most of the waste is far less dangerous than the popular view. And the high-level, possibly dangerous stuff is a vastly smaller volume than most folks think. We don’t need new engineering solutions — plenty of sufficient solutions have been known for decades. What we need is education and rational thinking from the voting public. (Sigh. I can only wish…)
This is exactly what was done with nuclear waste from Sellafield in the UK until Greenpeace kicked up a fuss and stopped it. So now the same containers (steel barrels with concrete -encased solid waste) have been stored for 30 years in underground storage areas on land and have been leaking as the ground water go to them (as they were designed to do underwater) causing plumes of waste in the ground which Greenpeace are now complaining about!
[Sorry of this was mentioned above – have only just had chance to read this article and haven’t waded through the comments yet.]
Radioactivity is dangerous in high doses so the solution is dilution. Do it slowly in a large volume of water. All we have done is remove it from the ground (mining) and concentrated it, extracted energy from it, before returning it to the ocean. A nice cycle if you ask me.
don’t know about the rest of the world. But here in the good ole US of A, the left needs these nuclear stuff sitting close to where people can go see, to get the “stupid” vote. so, sorry, this is not going to happen. neither will any other really good idea
Green Peace/Earth First = logic , never happen.
Question to ask why this under 1% of all of U.S. rule U.S..
When your correct act like it.
I have no objections to this for getting rid of true nuclear waste, but I am in favor of reprocessing spent fuel so it can be used again and again until it is well and truly used up. Then get rid of it.
Elegant! Go ahead, drop them darts in the Mariana trench.
There is another solution; Use all the super duper climate-computer money, and build a space-elevator.
When the space elevator is in place, we can just lob them darts into the sun.
Willis, please go to the web site below and look up Parlee, Norman and read the memorial. Norman Parlee did a great deal of early work in vitrification of nuclear fuel elements. If you are interested, you should be able to get my contact info from Anthony or one of the other mods. I can discuss some of his work in general terms and point you in the direction of a former grad student of his who worked with him for a number of years.
RayG
histsoc.stanford.edu/alpha_list.shtml#pp
[When posting a link, please cut and paste the entire link from your address bar, with at least one space before and after the link. ~dbs, mod.]
Willis,
See above: Brian H says; Legatus says: (sort of); Squidly says;
I support the motion for the amendment suggested for your
“darts” to be embedded in the ocean ooze in the Marinanas trench
at a point where they will be subducted and folded into the crust:
http://mineralsciences.si.edu/tdpmap/pdfs/subduction.pdf
Alternatively, as a disposal method, bundle your darts at an
assembly point in space and guide the whole container toward
the sun, see above:
MichaelEdits says: May 6, 2011 at 2:00 am:
“Set the controls for the heart of the sun” (in homage to
Pink Floyd) with Jeff Alberts says; in concurrance.
But, the true solution is FUSION, not fission ! Again there
seem to be no supporters of nuclear power who want
a non-radioactive fusion reactor to ever be developed.
What’s up with that ?
Good idea. Just a comment concerning Calcium. It is in fact one of the most abundant elements both on land and in the sea. Roughly 5th in the league table on land: O, Si, Al, Fe, Ca.
In the Sea it’s 7th: O, H, Cl, Na, Mg, S, Ca. So on AV would it come 2nd ?!
Think much, before you type? Deep-sea retrieval equipment is not exactly on sale at Home Depot. I’d love to see the terrorist group with the resources to recover anything from 10km below sea level, let alone a multi-ton steel and concrete “lawn dart”. Once it smacks into the sea bed at 70+ mph and buries itself, you’ll be hard-pressed to lever it out again by any means, lifting rings or no. Ever walked out of a boot crossing a particularly muddy stretch in a field? The forces on any attachment point are going to be immense trying to haul it back out of the mud. Not happening with anything the US government is likey to have at hand, let alone some disaffected bad boy wannabes with delusions of grandeur.
There’s something “fishy” about your proposal, Willis! 😉
Like Mike Bromley (5/6 1246AM), I’d be concerned that someone making a dirty bomb might use the tethers you propose to recover the “tunas.” Ryan’s proposal (5/6, 249 AM) of making them both untagged and small would make this impossible, though perhaps “sardines” or “minnows” would be more aqua-dynamic and therefore self-burying than his ball-bearings!
Likewise, I would go for a deep subduction trench, rather than a coastal alluvial deposit or mid-Atlantic ridge, in order to put them as far out of the food chain as possible.
At the published elemental concentration ratios, a cubic kilometer of ordinary seawater already contains thousands of tons of radioactive elements (uranium, thorium, etc.) and about 1 gram of radium. There are an awful lot of cubic kilometers out there.
It could be worse. I had some friends at work seriously engaged in a study of rocketing radioactive “waste” into the sun (a more difficult task than sending it into interstellar space). I told them it would make more sense to just dump it into the oceans (see above comment).
Remind me again why we’re worried about radioactive “waste”—when we all aspire to granite countertops? (Granite is composed of quartz, feldspar, and…yes…pitchblende.) I am beginning to think a Geiger counter could make a very provocative cocktail party toy. Who is the most radioactive partygoer…?
Ellis, if you haven’t already you might be interested in reading up on the Olko Reactors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
Personally I would synroc the lot and bury it deep underground in central Australia. From a political perspective people get too excitable when you suggest dumping things at sea, regardless of how logical a solution it may be.
Maybe you have saved the nuclear industry.
Important to know .
Who is paying for the storage of the current nuke waste here in the U.S. now.
The waste stored at the Power Company Nuke plants .
Once you understand that and the why of it you will better understand the power of money and how that power is greater than the power of the nuke plants and the fear of the waste itself.
R.S.Brown says:
May 6, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“But, the true solution is FUSION, not fission !”
Maybe not;
http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
The radioactive stuff came out of the ground in the first place, so it makes sense to return it there.
However, as an alternative to Willis’ darts how about using Tectonic Plate Power.
The surface of the globe consists of tectonic plates, continuously moving either together or apart.
So, we find some remote place where the plates are sliding together, one sliding beneath the other, and we place Willis’ darts there so that they are gradually absorbed into the layers between the two plates.
That’s that.
What is the next problem?
Willis,
This idea was seriously considered in the 1980s. see for example, Ove Arup and Parners report for the European Commission – ‘Ocean Disposal of Radioactive Waste by Penetrator Emplacement (ISBN 0 86010 812 0) published in 1985.
The idea really fell foul of the IMO’s London Dumping Convention drawn up in 1972. The latter was ‘translated’ into a Protocol in 1996 which currently has 40 signatories. These include most European Countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand but not the US.
Thus whilst the basic idea is probably very sound the political problems that would have to be overcome to make it a reality are likely insurmountable.
From phlogiston on May 6, 2011 at 8:22 am:
We have heard before about using pumped storage to smooth out wind and solar, store the peaks for when the supplies are low. Invert the problem. Run the nuke plants flat out, when demand is low you send the excess to the pumped storage, which will then be tapped when demand is high. Pumped storage can respond rather quickly to demand, more than fast enough for grid stability.
So nuclear plants and pumped storage should be all that’s needed. Although they can use a sensible pumped storage scheme like a hydroelectric dam with a two-level reservoir (pump from lower to upper, electricity generation by flow from upper to lower or lower to riverbed) and pick up some “free renewable” energy as well.
This ( http://campanian.iodp.org/MantleFrontier/12_Ojovan%20-%20Self_Sinking_Capsules_-_Ojovan.pdf ) kind of thing would probably be better for the stuff you never want to see again. Once that little puddle of molten rock hardens up, you can forget about chasing after it – it’ll descend faster than you can drill.
Excellent idea. I don’t see the need for making the ‘darts’ retrievable, though. It’s not likely that that terrorists will spend megabucks on a deep sea retrieval mission. Mass murder is a low-tech operation: it’s much simpler to strap explosives to a 16 year old boy, promise him houris in heaven, and send him down to a church or coffee shop for his eternal reward. I should think the ‘dart’ technique could have applications for disposal of other than nuclear waste. True, managing nuclear waste is a political rather than a technical problem. Hence, another advantage of your proposal is that even the most rabid greenies will find it difficult to stage a protest at the disposal site. Out of sight, out of mind. Some day, the tide will turn — I suspect our crop of ageing activists will soon pass their use-by date, and that the next generation will develop some measure of immunity to the ‘sanctimony’ and ‘apocalypse’ parasites. The more good ideas like this that we’ve scraped together, the sooner it’ll happen. Well done, sirrah!
I fear I read no further than that, although you might have very valid points. The problem is that you are straying out of the politeness field.
Peter, when you start out your initial input into a discussion with an insult and an assumption that you know the limits of my “competence field”, I stop reading right there. A man who acts like that is not welcome in my world. I have plenty of polite folks with whom I can discuss these issues.
I have no “competence field”. I have imagination and an absurdly wide-ranging fund of experience and knowledge in a host of fields. I have worked as a construction manager, a psychotherapist, a silver refiner, a shipyard manager, a jeweler, a Chief Financial Officer, a commercial artist, an automobile mechanic, a musician, a commercial fisherman, and many more occupations … and you somehow are the arbiter of the bounds on my “competence field”?
I put my ideas out in the world for people to shoot down. I make them public so that both non-experts as well as experts in the various specialties can tell me where I’m wrong. I make no claims about my competence field or my right to propose the ideas, that’s immaterial. The question is, are my ideas right or wrong?
I’m not going back to read what you wrote. Next time, if you want a discussion, start by discussing the issues rather than by insulting me.
w.
Thomas says:
May 6, 2011 at 1:54 am
I agree in theory, of course. The ocean has been used as a dumping ground for centuries, and it’s not a good thing.
I would distinguish, however, between oceanic dumping and suboceanic burial. As such, I’m not sure how or which treaties would apply.
Yeah, could be. Maybe it’s best to just bury it in the oceanic mud and forget it.
w.
John Marshall says:
May 6, 2011 at 2:15 am
What is it with the insults? I put out an idea and ask for ways to improve it or things that are wrong with it, and you want to insult me? Your ugliness is not appreciated.
w.
Paul says:
May 6, 2011 at 2:17 am
You need to pick your material carefully. You are correct that stainless is subject to what we boatbuilders call “crevice corrosion”, which occurs in anoxic conditions. However, crevice corrosion doesn’t occur much at temperatures below about 10°C, and the temperature at the bottom of the ocean is well below that. Also, the resistance to crevice corrosion varies widely among different types of stainless steel. It’s a solvable engineering issue.
w.