3 ms·
When I read stuff like that I am a bit irritated because it doesn't inform the reader that there are much less expensive ways to "clean up" these facilities. Th
by ChuckMcM 3y ago
When I read stuff like that I am a bit irritated because it doesn't inform the reader that there are much less expensive ways to "clean up" these facilities. The problem with those cheaper ways is that they lock up the nuclear isotopes in a way that prevents them from being reprocessed into new fuel or recycled into weapons again. Back in 1985 there was an interesting demonstration of vitrification[1] which I felt was pretty cool. And if you seal this glass inside a steel case (which keeps all the alpha/beta decay products inside) you're basically left with slightly warm stackable steel things that emit zero radiation. But they can't be (easily) post processed back into concentrated nuclear materials.
[1] https://physicsworld.com/a/a-glassy-solution-to-nuclear-waste/ https://physicsworld.com/a/a-glassy-solution-to-nuclear-wast...
- jcrawfordor 3y agoI'm not sure what you're referring to, it's not typical to preserve isotopes during cleanup activities. The cleanup process mostly involves packaging contaminated items to bury them. This process is dangerous and must be done with extensive protective equipment, which makes it very slow and time consuming. The isotopes involved here aren't useful anyway. We're talking about everything from gloves to concrete walls that have been contaminated with daughter products. What I think you're referring to is processing of spent fuel, which is a smaller item in these types of projects since the spent fuel is already packaged for storage. I'm not an expert on the UK situation but I wouldn't be surprised if spent fuel management is a tiny portion or not included in that estimate at all, it's usually already covered out of operating budgets.