5 ms·

...SNF and waste are not the same thing. This is incoherent.

credit_guy 4y ago
Why do you think they are not the same thing? Waste is more than spent nuclear fuel, that is true. But the long-lived waste that people worry about is either spent nuclear fuel, or processed spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear weapons are made with Plutonium-239, which is created by running a regular reactor that burns U-235 and U-238. U-238 can capture one neutron and become Pu-239, but that can capture one more neutron and become Pu-240, which is not good for weapons. So, to produce weapons-grade Pu-239 you need to run a reactor for very little (in technical terms the burnup is ultra low), take the Uranium rods out of the reactor and dissolve the in some chemicals and extract Pu-239 out of that liquid. The remaining liquid is the one that's being disposed at the WIPP facility. What exactly is bothering you in this description?
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Condescendingly describing something I already know isn't helping your point. Nor is continuing to pretend tritated water somehow magically only counts as waste when in a weapons facility. And the exact same thing happening in mox facilities (but at far greater volume) doesn't count why?
  - credit_guy 4y ago
    I don't count tritiated water as waste, and I don't think anyone does. Not sure what your point is.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      You're counting everything including LLW and chemical waste on one side of the equation and only SNF on the other. It's so stupid one would think you're actively trying to discredit sane nuclear proponents by associating them with you.
      - credit_guy 4y ago
        Why don't you enlighten us then? You are saying my comparison is not apples and apples. So, in your opinion, if we look at long lived nuclear waste, did the weapons programs produce more such waste than the civilian reactors, or less? Also, I'm saying it would make sense to dispose of the spent nuclear fuel produced by the civilian reactors at the WIPP repository? Are you saying this does not make sense? Why?
        Schroedingersat 4y ago
        You're welcome to prove your initial assertion now that you're admitting how facile the comparison was. You're also now asserting that weapons waste is handled in a perfectly fine way suitable for orders of magnitude more long lived waste in the same breath you imply they're far more irresponsible.
        credit_guy 4y ago
        Ok, here we go, just because I like you so much. During the Cold War, the US has produced about 100 tons of Plutonium for weapons purposes. Here's the quote from [1] > Between 1944 and 1988, the United States built special reactors to make about 100 metric tons of plutonium for nuclear weapons. The reactors created the highly radioactive plutonium by bombarding uranium fuel rods with neutrons. Each time a uranium atom changed to a plutonium atom, more neutrons were released, causing a chain reaction. The process continued until the majority of the uranium atoms were converted to plutonium, thus ending the chain reaction. At this point, the fuel rods are said to be spent (used up) and they were removed from the reactor. > Workers used strong acids to dissolve the plutonium from the fuel rods. This process left behind more than 100 million gallons of hazardous liquid waste. It is called mixed waste because it contains both hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials. The Department of Energy is working to safely cleanup and dispose of these nuclear weapons production wastes This "mixed waste" that the EPA is talking about is the one that's being burried at the WIPP facility. It contains trans-uranic isotopes (TRU). These isotopes are long-lived. They can be permanently disposed of either by being burned in a fast neutron reactor or by being buried deep underground. The second solution was chosen. Although this "mixed waste" is not identical with the civilian spent nuclear fuel, the problem of long lived radionuclides is the same. If this waste can be disposed at the WIPP facility, then the spent fuel can too. Did I satisfy your high standards of debate? [1] https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-weapons-production-waste https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-weapons-production-waste

Why do you think they are not the same thing? Waste is more than spent nuclear fuel, that is true. But the long-lived waste that people worry about is either spent nuclear fuel, or processed spent nuclear fuel. Nuclear weapons are made with Plutonium-239, which is created by running a regular reactor that burns U-235 and U-238. U-238 can capture one neutron and become Pu-239, but that can capture one more neutron and become Pu-240, which is not good for weapons. So, to produce weapons-grade Pu-239 you need to run a reactor for very little (in technical terms the burnup is ultra low), take the Uranium rods out of the reactor and dissolve the in some chemicals and extract Pu-239 out of that liquid. The remaining liquid is the one that's being disposed at the WIPP facility. What exactly is bothering you in this description?

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Condescendingly describing something I already know isn't helping your point. Nor is continuing to pretend tritated water somehow magically only counts as waste when in a weapons facility. And the exact same thing happening in mox facilities (but at far greater volume) doesn't count why?
- credit_guy 4y ago
  I don't count tritiated water as waste, and I don't think anyone does. Not sure what your point is.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    You're counting everything including LLW and chemical waste on one side of the equation and only SNF on the other. It's so stupid one would think you're actively trying to discredit sane nuclear proponents by associating them with you.
    - credit_guy 4y ago
      Why don't you enlighten us then? You are saying my comparison is not apples and apples. So, in your opinion, if we look at long lived nuclear waste, did the weapons programs produce more such waste than the civilian reactors, or less? Also, I'm saying it would make sense to dispose of the spent nuclear fuel produced by the civilian reactors at the WIPP repository? Are you saying this does not make sense? Why?
      - Schroedingersat 4y ago
        You're welcome to prove your initial assertion now that you're admitting how facile the comparison was. You're also now asserting that weapons waste is handled in a perfectly fine way suitable for orders of magnitude more long lived waste in the same breath you imply they're far more irresponsible.
        credit_guy 4y ago
        Ok, here we go, just because I like you so much. During the Cold War, the US has produced about 100 tons of Plutonium for weapons purposes. Here's the quote from [1] > Between 1944 and 1988, the United States built special reactors to make about 100 metric tons of plutonium for nuclear weapons. The reactors created the highly radioactive plutonium by bombarding uranium fuel rods with neutrons. Each time a uranium atom changed to a plutonium atom, more neutrons were released, causing a chain reaction. The process continued until the majority of the uranium atoms were converted to plutonium, thus ending the chain reaction. At this point, the fuel rods are said to be spent (used up) and they were removed from the reactor. > Workers used strong acids to dissolve the plutonium from the fuel rods. This process left behind more than 100 million gallons of hazardous liquid waste. It is called mixed waste because it contains both hazardous chemicals and radioactive materials. The Department of Energy is working to safely cleanup and dispose of these nuclear weapons production wastes This "mixed waste" that the EPA is talking about is the one that's being burried at the WIPP facility. It contains trans-uranic isotopes (TRU). These isotopes are long-lived. They can be permanently disposed of either by being burned in a fast neutron reactor or by being buried deep underground. The second solution was chosen. Although this "mixed waste" is not identical with the civilian spent nuclear fuel, the problem of long lived radionuclides is the same. If this waste can be disposed at the WIPP facility, then the spent fuel can too. Did I satisfy your high standards of debate? [1] https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-weapons-production-waste https://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuclear-weapons-production-waste