14 ms·

> A huge, naked pile of nuclear waste has sat beneath Oklo for billions of years; why not put a bit more under the Nevada desert, in shielded canisters no less?

> A huge, naked pile of nuclear waste has sat beneath Oklo for billions of years; why not put a bit more under the Nevada desert, in shielded canisters no less? Most of our nuclear waste is nothing like the nuclear "waste" in Oklo [1]. The primary danger comes not from the reactor but from the enrichment process and uranium hexaflouride (UF6). During enrichment, fissile uranium atoms are extracted to make "enriched" uranium while the rest (over 90%!) of the UF6, which is very toxic and reacts with air and water to form extremely corrosive compounds, is stored in gas cylinders as "depleted" uranium. Think about that again: we use metal gas canisters to store toxic waste, waste that reacts with some of the most abundant molecules to form more chemicals that slowly destroy the canister. Depending on how these containers are stored and maintained, the UF6 leaks into the air or, even worse, into our ground water reservoirs, taking the non-fissile but still radioactive uranium with it. Injecting our nuclear waste into the Earth like we do carbon sequestration would be great, but we just don't have the millions of years to wait for the uranium to pass through the ground water system or the technology to figure how and where our reservoirs interconnect (or even how big most of them are). Until we do, storing waste like Oklo is just a step shy of giving everyone some old Fiesta Ware. [1] http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/ http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/

Turing_Machine 13y ago
http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/storage/faq22.cfm http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/storage/faq22.cfm It says they're busy converting the UF6 to uranium oxides as we speak. Uranium oxides are the primary uranium ore. So, what you're getting out is the same stuff that came in from the mine, but considerably less radioactive (since the U235 and all the fission products (radium, etc.) have been removed). "but we just don't have the millions of years to wait for the uranium to pass through the ground water system" Those uranium oxides sat in the ore bodies for billions of years without causing trouble. There are almost certainly gigantic uranium ore deposits underneath the ocean. No one is worrying about them.
- akiselev 13y ago
  That deconversion process will take another 15-20 years [1] if the Paducah and Portsmouth plants are at the planned utilization, which AFAIK hasn't been true since at least the 2013 budget sequestration. Our UF6 isn't going away for another few decades. > Those uranium oxides sat in the ore bodies for billions of years without causing trouble. We've found ground water that is contaminated not only by uranium from coal plant ash ponds [2], uranium mines [3], ore processing [4], and flooding [5] but from the untouched ores lining natural underground aquifers as well [6]. > There are almost certainly gigantic uranium ore deposits underneath the ocean. No one is worrying about them. Any ore deposit is compressed for eons under pressure that is hundreds, or thousands, of times greater than anything we experience on a day to day basis, or even at the extremes of our technology. There's a huge difference between nature's long term storage and our temporary tin cans. [1] http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-deconversion.html http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-deconversion.... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_poisoning_in_Punjab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_poisoning_in_Punjab [3] http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14894696 http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14894696 [4] http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-voli/402-r-08-005-v1-ch4.pdf http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-voli/4... [5] http://energy.gov/lm/articles/doe-releases-data-summary-report-groundwater-and-soil-tests-conducted http://energy.gov/lm/articles/doe-releases-data-summary-repo... [6] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/088329279490037X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/08832927949...
  - Turing_Machine 13y ago
    "Any ore deposit is compressed for eons under pressure that is hundreds, or thousands, of times greater than anything we experience on a day to day basis" Sorry, that's simply not true. Ore can be in any form from hard rock to sand. In fact a significant amount of uranium ore occurs as placer deposits. Are you disputing that there are almost certainly very large uranium ore deposits on the sea floor, exposed directly to (uber corrosive!) saltwater? Why aren't you worried about those? "There's a huge difference between nature's long term storage and our temporary tin cans." Oh, please.
    - Turing_Machine 13y ago

Turing_Machine 13y ago

http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/storage/faq22.cfm http://web.ead.anl.gov/uranium/faq/storage/faq22.cfm It says they're busy converting the UF6 to uranium oxides as we speak. Uranium oxides are the primary uranium ore. So, what you're getting out is the same stuff that came in from the mine, but considerably less radioactive (since the U235 and all the fission products (radium, etc.) have been removed). "but we just don't have the millions of years to wait for the uranium to pass through the ground water system" Those uranium oxides sat in the ore bodies for billions of years without causing trouble. There are almost certainly gigantic uranium ore deposits underneath the ocean. No one is worrying about them.

akiselev 13y ago
That deconversion process will take another 15-20 years [1] if the Paducah and Portsmouth plants are at the planned utilization, which AFAIK hasn't been true since at least the 2013 budget sequestration. Our UF6 isn't going away for another few decades. > Those uranium oxides sat in the ore bodies for billions of years without causing trouble. We've found ground water that is contaminated not only by uranium from coal plant ash ponds [2], uranium mines [3], ore processing [4], and flooding [5] but from the untouched ores lining natural underground aquifers as well [6]. > There are almost certainly gigantic uranium ore deposits underneath the ocean. No one is worrying about them. Any ore deposit is compressed for eons under pressure that is hundreds, or thousands, of times greater than anything we experience on a day to day basis, or even at the extremes of our technology. There's a huge difference between nature's long term storage and our temporary tin cans. [1] http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-deconversion.html http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/ur-deconversion.... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_poisoning_in_Punjab http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_poisoning_in_Punjab [3] http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14894696 http://www.denverpost.com/ci_14894696 [4] http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-voli/402-r-08-005-v1-ch4.pdf http://www.epa.gov/radiation/docs/tenorm/402-r-08-005-voli/4... [5] http://energy.gov/lm/articles/doe-releases-data-summary-report-groundwater-and-soil-tests-conducted http://energy.gov/lm/articles/doe-releases-data-summary-repo... [6] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/088329279490037X http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/08832927949...
- Turing_Machine 13y ago
  "Any ore deposit is compressed for eons under pressure that is hundreds, or thousands, of times greater than anything we experience on a day to day basis" Sorry, that's simply not true. Ore can be in any form from hard rock to sand. In fact a significant amount of uranium ore occurs as placer deposits. Are you disputing that there are almost certainly very large uranium ore deposits on the sea floor, exposed directly to (uber corrosive!) saltwater? Why aren't you worried about those? "There's a huge difference between nature's long term storage and our temporary tin cans." Oh, please.
  - Turing_Machine 13y ago