Canned nuclear waste cooks its container
Estimates of radiation damage to materials have been too low.
Storing high-level nuclear waste without any leakage over thousands of years may be harder than experts have thought, research published in Nature today shows.
Read the story here.
Comments
This research should be conveyed to those contry presidents who are thinking of nuclear weapons or even energy without having proper budget and planning for its waste disposal.
Cant we put this waste material surrounded by heavy water container?
Posted by: Ambavale Sagar | January 11, 2007 09:24 AM
I'm Alvaro, from Chile Southamerica.
I read this interesting article, and I wonder if could be possible to eliminate those radioactive substances by dropping it into the sun.
I suppose that the resultant radiation of the supposed explosion, will propagate in cardioid direction affecting in a very low manner to the earth's environment, and the resultant radioactive waste will be trapped into the sun's gravity and would be degradated very fast.
Posted by: Alvaro Astudillo | January 11, 2007 12:19 PM
You can't send the stuff to the sun. There are thousands of tons of this stuff. The amount of energy spent to get it out of the earth's orbit would be enourmous. And what happens if a rocket fails and explodes in Earth's atmosphere? Or on the launchpad? Yikes.....
Posted by: Chris B | January 11, 2007 05:20 PM
it's better that the radioactive waste should be out of this world, even thought the short term high costs involved in that process, but by launching a non tripulated spacecraft containing that waste will be an applicable long term project, and "100% ecological" solution, so the waste will not be anymore in the earth's biosfere.
Posted by: Alvaro Astudillo | January 12, 2007 03:27 PM
As this article points out, Farnan's findings should encourage engineers to think very carefully about the matrix encasing the radioactive waste.
Alternative ceramics have been investigated. Results from ongoing studies using chemically bonded phosphate ceramics have been very promising.
Posted by: Duane Warren | January 12, 2007 09:33 PM
Sending rdaioactive material into space? I would guess that the energy embodied in creating the space craft plus the take-off would create more CO2 than would be saved by using a nuclear reactor.
Posted by: Barry Rosenberg | January 14, 2007 01:52 AM
This discovery doesn't surprise me.
While im a lover of science and all the amazing discoveries are great, The first year engineering principle applies.
KISS - Keep it Simple Stupid
Why keep pursuing such a troublesome solution for commercial energy production when not one nuclear power plant has ever made a profit.....!!!!
Its so expensive, opening up possibilities for political powermongers, Holding Nuclear Weapons seams to be the only way to become a permanent member of the united nations...
Its quite clear that we are only looking at postponing a problem for later....while embracing an enevitablely high level of risk.
One massive error is the faith that we humans are trustworthy. This is the biggest mistake we could make....
Look at all the depleted uranium spread throughout the middle east...under the name of freedom and democracy.
Why risk so much at such a massive health and consumer price ?
Human Civilization is still very young. Why choose the dangerous path when their are so many other cheaper alternatives whos costs are known and dangers do not exist.
Alternative Energies have had no time to bloom. Its worth taking the alternative pathway even if it seams to be more difficult at the present time !
Posted by: Christopher Moore | January 15, 2007 02:07 AM
I suggest the scaremongers out there read the paper more closely. The first two sentences of paragraph two state "Several actinide-containing minerals, such as zircon (ZrSiO4), are
highly durable, with the result that some are almost as old as the Earth
(4.4 gigayears). They have frequently endured extreme geological events while remaining as closed systems for uranium and thorium over geological timescales." The reduction in durability is relative. Zircon remains highly durable in spite of the radiation damage.
Posted by: Ewan Maddrell | January 15, 2007 02:32 PM
Alvaro Astudillo:
disposing of nuclear waste by blasting it into space (ie. outside the earth's eco system) is in NO WAY an '"100% ecological" solution'. an ecological solution implies retaining and re-using all wastes in an ecosystem (cyclical). the only "ecological" solution to nuclear waste would be not to create it in the first place, but we're well past that, and still going fast...
Posted by: ned haughton | January 16, 2007 09:54 AM
The article is interesting and confirms many of the fears that those in the anti-nuclear movement have had for a long time: at the very least it will be extremely costly and require constant attention of the coming generations to take care of the nuclear waste we are creating. These costs are also energy-costs (re-treatment of containers will be necessary at regular intervals)
When I come accross hard-core nuclear energy supporters I often hear the "space mission solution", i.e. that we ought to send our waste to the sun, the moon or some other faraway place. (People used to dump rubbish in the sea with the same thought a few centuries ago. then it started coming back...) It has an interesting aspect: If people sincerely believe this to be the best thing to do, we should immediately turn off all nuclear power stations, as the power needed to send the waste into space (fuel for the spaceships) is greater than the energy that was generated with them.
Couldn't we all cut down on our energy usage? Of course we could! Prices need to go up, consumption down so we can limit the amount of nuclear waste on this earth
Posted by: luke | January 19, 2007 12:18 AM
if we banned nuclear energy, electricity prices would go up, people would use far less electricity, create less co2 and it would be an incentive for power companies to invest in renewables
Posted by: marty k | January 19, 2007 06:47 PM
this s a very intresting argument but the question is do onei giv
Posted by: joel | May 11, 2007 12:00 PM