4 ms·

Maybe try decommissioning some of the old reactors that are beyond their safe lifetime and use the steel from them. Much of that steel cannot be used for conven

Maybe try decommissioning some of the old reactors that are beyond their safe lifetime and use the steel from them. Much of that steel cannot be used for conventional projects because it poses a radiation hazard. That should devalue it. https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-material-scrap-metal https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-material-scrap-metal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_scrap_metal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_scrap_metal

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Interesting concept. It reduces decomissioning costs and building costs. Would the extra handling precautions cost more than you saved though?
KingOfCoders 4y ago
"That should devalue it." Only if the other party wants to sell.
- morninglight 4y ago
  Reactors from nuclear subs might be a good place to start. Now we bury them for a period of at least 600 years. And there is plenty more from conventional nuclear power stations. https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/disposal-site-for-nuclear-submarine-reactors/ https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/disposal-site-for-nucle...
ragebol 4y ago
Interesting idea. Though I doubt working with(slightly?) radioactive steel during construction makes things cheaper. It cannot be used conventionally for a reason, it needs special handling I suppose.
- myself248 4y ago
  There's a sliding scale of special handling, and of how unsuitable it is for other things, though. It's interesting to ponder whether there might be a sweet spot of "too radioactive to be reused as warehouse beams" but "foundry workers making a new reactor vessel out of it would only need minimal protection for the few days they'd be around it".
jnsaff2 4y ago
And how would you rework that radioactive metal into a new high-precision containment vessel and piping? The added faff of dealing with irradiated materials will surely be orders of magnitude more expensive then the price increase in raw clean steel. All of your machinery will be contaminated, really bad for the fabricators, installers, maintainers.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Interesting concept. It reduces decomissioning costs and building costs. Would the extra handling precautions cost more than you saved though?

KingOfCoders 4y ago

"That should devalue it." Only if the other party wants to sell.

morninglight 4y ago
Reactors from nuclear subs might be a good place to start. Now we bury them for a period of at least 600 years. And there is plenty more from conventional nuclear power stations. https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/disposal-site-for-nuclear-submarine-reactors/ https://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/disposal-site-for-nucle...

ragebol 4y ago

Interesting idea. Though I doubt working with(slightly?) radioactive steel during construction makes things cheaper. It cannot be used conventionally for a reason, it needs special handling I suppose.

myself248 4y ago
There's a sliding scale of special handling, and of how unsuitable it is for other things, though. It's interesting to ponder whether there might be a sweet spot of "too radioactive to be reused as warehouse beams" but "foundry workers making a new reactor vessel out of it would only need minimal protection for the few days they'd be around it".

jnsaff2 4y ago

And how would you rework that radioactive metal into a new high-precision containment vessel and piping? The added faff of dealing with irradiated materials will surely be orders of magnitude more expensive then the price increase in raw clean steel. All of your machinery will be contaminated, really bad for the fabricators, installers, maintainers.