Hacker News Reader

Comment by ffghhh | Hacker News Reader

Except:

1. No one does that, or has the ability to do that except the Russians [0] 2. Much less hazardous is still tons of extremely dangerous stuff that will last 100 k years. [1]

[0] fast breeders. I know you can re-process fuel for normal nuclear reactors. But that doesn’t give you: “less hazardous and only needs to be stored for a much shorter time” waste

[1] to a first approximation linger lived isotopes are less dangerous. But the conclusion that they’re not a problem is not correct:

- An isotope that lives 100k years is incredibly radioactive! - these isotopes can produce children that are very short lived, and therefore nasty (think short lived radon, produced from geologically decaying isotopes)

Edit: spelling of “extremely”

View on HN

>...I know you can re-process fuel for normal nuclear reactors. But that doesn’t give you: “less hazardous and only needs to be stored for a much shorter time” waste

I am not very familiar with the Russian breeder design in particular, but generally that is wrong fro 4th generation designs:

"...Fast reactors can "burn" long lasting nuclear transuranic waste (TRU) waste components (actinides: reactor-grade plutonium and minor actinides), turning liabilities into assets. Another major waste component, fission products (FP), would stabilize at a lower level of radioactivity than the original natural uranium ore it was attained from in two to four centuries, rather than tens of thousands of years"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

While there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. The amounts being generated are manageable and in a relatively short amount of time we can use most of this "waste" to generate electricity.

Breeder reactors are fast reactors. “Fast” refers to neutron energy that “Breeds” new fuel.

Yes, the west has done research and maybe a couple of demo reactors of insignificant power. But only the Soviets, and then the Russians have an industrial sized “fast”, or “breeder” reactor.

As to the waste of “breeders” being manageable, that remains to be seen, doesn’t it?

>...Yes, the west has done research and maybe a couple of demo reactors of insignificant power.

Granted that the power level for EBR II was insignificant compared to a commercial reactor, but it did run successfully for about 30 years and generated about 2 billion kilowatts of power.

https://www.ne.anl.gov/About/reactors/frt.shtml

>...As to the waste of “breeders” being manageable, that remains to be seen, doesn’t it?

Within about 4 centuries the small volume of waste generated by a breeder reactor should be less radioactive than the uranium ore that it came from.

False: France has [1].

Double digits of France's electricity comes from reprocessed nuclear fuel.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Hague_site

OP specifically referred to breeder reactors, which this is not. This is a reprocessing plant which “scrapes” fuel like Pu (which is not that radioactive) and puts it in a normal reactor.

The nasties are all there still.

Breeders “make” their own fuel from actual waste. The US and France had reader had breeder programs, but shut them down.

> fast breeders

How many would actually be needed to burn up the unused fuel of "regular" reactors? Is there some ration of regular:breeder that would be needed (5:1, 8:1, 13:1)?

> to a first approximation longer lived isotopes are less dangerous.

But isn't the shielding required for the longer lived stuff simpler? Presumably the short-lived stuff is hotter gamma radiation, which needs more shielding.

Cesium-137 for example has a 30-year half-life. So after e.g. 60 years you still have 1/4 of the radioactive cesium-137 remaining. For context, that's less than the length of time since the Three Mile Island accident.

Edit: according to Wikipedia, cesium-137 decays to barium-137m, which decays to barium-137 by gamma ray emission (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137). So even though cesium-137 decays through beta radiation it needs shielding against gamma radiation.

> How many would actually be needed to burn up the unused fuel of "regular" reactors? Is there some ration of regular:breeder that would be needed (5:1, 8:1, 13:1)?

Depends on the specifics, e.g. Russia is proposing a 2:1 ratio for a cycle they're planning:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-pro...

I can agree to "noone does that" but 100 000 years nuclear waste is not true.

ALMR reactors would use that waste to produce short half-live waste which radiation can even stop in the matter of hours...

Thats what Chinese invest into now and technology is 40 years old.

Technologically we are way past the "dirty&dengerous" nuclear reactors. ALMR also fixes issue of old nuclear reactors that could be shut down overtime.

People fear the second Chernobyl.. thats that why we dont invest into Nuclear Power that is our only chance in current age. There is no logic in that, only mass media, lobbing and disinformation going rampant..

One reason would be that the ALMR uses liquid metal, and the onus is on the nuclear industry to convince us that liquid sodium isn’t a terrible idea.

‘S/sodium/whatever other metal you prefer/‘

I think multiple studies about the topic were enough to convince people in power, but screaming "CHERNOBYL" or "Nuclear Bombs" convinces an average voter way better..

It's a tragedy..

Why do only the Russians have the ability to reprocess these fuels?

They're the only nation with operating fast breeder reactors than can handle this type of waste.

Why are they the only ones operating this type of reactor?

Building new reactors is costly and you need public opinion to agree to that. Unfortunately when someone proposes building new kinds of reactors some asshole backed by "Oil Corp Co." runs ahead screaming "Chernobyl Fukushima!!!" and public opinion is instantly biased negatively to that idea.

Its completely illogical to block Nuclear Power advancement, but goverments are either lobbed or public opinion disagrees after being fed complete horseshit disinformation.

Fast breeder reactors that have been successfully run are difficult/costly and have proliferation concerns.

They’re, arguably, the only country left with a serious nuclear industry. One that can propose a new reactor design and follow up to commercialization.

The US’ got lazy, the European was good, but never innovative, Canada and S. Africa are too small.

The US didn't get lazy, the US allowed the market to speak (with substantial deregulation of the electrical power generation industry). And the market said nuclear is a loser technology, compared to alternatives. Not investing in loser technologies is not laziness, but intelligence.

> No one does that

Um, what? France has been reprocessing for decades.

> Much less hazardous is still tons of extremely dangerous stuff that will last 100 k years

Um, what? What's left over after reprocessing is only dangerous for 100 years or less.

OP separates reprocessing from breeding. His statement is clear that no one, except Russia, breeds.

100 years for reprocessed waste? Do cite!

> An isotope that lives 100k years is incredibly radioactive! - these isotopes can produce children that are very short lived

Oh really? Which isotope among the fission products would that be?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com