Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

[Old Man]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Silliest idea I ever heard was build a reactor on Mars, stack all the nuke waste around it, then pull the control rods and allow it to "China Syndrome" to the core. Intent was to start some vulcanism as part of a terraforming project.

 

[Markdoc]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

IIRC the Yucca Mountain sight is designed so that the canisters melt their way into the salt.

 

Silliest idea I ever heard was build a reactor on Mars, stack all the nuke waste around it, then pull the control rods and allow it to "China Syndrome" to the core. Intent was to start some vulcanism as part of a terraforming project.

 

So much wrong I literally don't know where to begin.

 

Actually, that sounds kind of cool. Useless, expensive and dangerous, but cool. Imagine the effect of a super-radioactive pool of molten metal throwing great gobs of the stuff into the air, as it poisoned everything in sight (and then some), like the Old Faithful of Hell. That'd attract interstellar tourists, even if nothing else we did would.

 

cheers, Mark

[Ternaugh]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

Which is why Yucca Mountain remains the most sensible near-term solution' date=' and somebody with authority and guts need to tell Nevada's state government to stuff it. The flat fact is that the waste is NOT safe where it is right now, but we CAN safely transport it to a suitable repository. The argument against Yucca from some quarters about "But we can't be CERTAIN it will be absolutely leak-proof for the next billion plus years!" is complete bogus. Yucca Mountain doesn't have to perfectly retain the waste for a billion years, only for a few decades until we decide that we have a new use for it.[/quote']

 

Yucca Mountain was chosen as the only nuclear waste repository, after folks from Texas and Washington eliminated themselves from the competition with the Screw Nevada bill. There was no good science involved in the decision, just politics.

 

Yucca Mountain is made of volcanic tuff, and is extremely fractured. That means that water actually moves through the geological structure fairly easily. To engineer around this, the designers came up with the idea of special alloy drip shields to cover the storage casks. Having to use these drip shields essentially means that one of the perceived benefits of the location (low moisture) is actually no longer accurate. We can't be certain that it won't be leakproof in the short term (50 to 100 years), let alone on a geological timescale.

 

That volcanic tuff is what's left of a caldera volcano eruption that's been pushed up by a fault line. The area's still seismically active (Nevada's the third most seismically active state), and in fact, the office for the project was heavily damaged in 1992 when a 5.6 magnitude earthquake struck 8 miles southeast of Yucca Mountain. Oh, and there's a small chance that nearby caldera volcanoes may not actually be extinct. Here's more information on the seismic activity in the area: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/yucca/seismo01.htm

 

I mostly agree' date=' although I can't remember if that facility is designed in such a way that the waste can be removed easily.[/quote']

 

Originally, the waste was supposed to be retrievable within 25 years, in case we started reprocessing or using more efficient reactor designs (like the CANDU reactors, which can actually burn the spent rods as fuel). That requirement was taken out to be able to store more waste in the facility. Yucca Mountain was essentially overbooked, as well, meaning that it can't actually hold all of the waste sitting around, even if it did open.

 

IIRC the Yucca Mountain sight is designed so that the canisters melt their way into the salt.

 

Silliest idea I ever heard was build a reactor on Mars, stack all the nuke waste around it, then pull the control rods and allow it to "China Syndrome" to the core. Intent was to start some vulcanism as part of a terraforming project.

 

So much wrong I literally don't know where to begin.

 

I don't believe there's any salt layer to melt into at Yucca Mountain. Under the tuff is the water table for the Great Basin area.

 

JoeG

[Tom Carman]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

That's the most rational argument I've yet heard for not using Yucca. Significant seismic activity and not-necessarily-extinct volcanoes makes a bad site choice. Still, we need a safe (federally-owned), preferably subterranean place to park the stuff for a few decades. I stand by the point that the waste is not safe where it is now. My parents live within sight of 3 reactors that have been running for enough decades to have plenty of spend fuel onsite; it's also on a major river/estuary, within 50 miles of 2 major cities and many smaller ones. I don't live there now, but I'm still within 100 miles of 5 active nuclear plants.

[Ternaugh]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

That's the most rational argument I've yet heard for not using Yucca. Significant seismic activity and not-necessarily-extinct volcanoes makes a bad site choice. Still' date=' we need a safe (federally-owned), preferably subterranean place to park the stuff for a few decades. I stand by the point that the waste is not safe where it is now. My parents live within sight of 3 reactors that have been running for enough decades to have plenty of spend fuel onsite; it's also on a major river/estuary, within 50 miles of 2 major cities and many smaller ones. I don't live there now, but I'm still within 100 miles of 5 active nuclear plants.[/quote']

 

We need a safe nuclear reactor that isn't a light-water design that can generate power from the "waste".

The CANDU reactor design is one that could fit the bill.

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

A look at current proposals that focusses on "dry cask storage." Note that the author is skeptical of the idea of "burning" spent fuel rods as fuel, as it doesn't materially reduce the amount of waste.

 

So. Where on Mars do we want our nuclear geyser to be?

[Ternaugh]

Re: Without fusion power, why go back to the moon?

 

A look at current proposals that focusses on "dry cask storage." Note that the author is skeptical of the idea of "burning" spent fuel rods as fuel, as it doesn't materially reduce the amount of waste.

 

So. Where on Mars do we want our nuclear geyser to be?

 

The author was talking about reprocessing, which is different than a plant that could use the "depleted" fuel without enrichment.