Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Sep 22, 2018 6:35 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: Sep 08, 2013 7:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 14, 2006 1:01 pm
Posts: 379
I thought boreholes were one of the most-studied repository methods, and the closest to actual deployment, though not in the U.S.
According to the book below, borehole storage has been studied for clay, sedimentary rock, salt, and crystalline rock, with and without bedding and seals of bentonite and cement.
My impression is that one of the most favored methods is a borehole into clay that drains under a seabed. Another is a borehole into crystalline rock, sealed with bentonite clay slip. The most studied container and waste form is a stainless steel can, 5cm wall-thickness, with the waste dissolved into borosilicate glass and cast into the container. This will work. I think copper and iron-phosphate glass is even better, and has studies to prove it.

My summary reference for this is "The Scientific and Regulatory Basis for the Geological Disposal of Radioactive Waste"; 1995, Wiley, West Sussex, England (I bought mine used on Amazon-- MUCH cheaper)

After I read the book, I concluded that almost any reasonable form of repository will work, even for TRUs. Fission products are cake. No more science is needed.

Some references:
KBS, (1983), Final Storage of Spent Fuel, Volumes 1-5, in KBS-3, Swedish Nuclear Fuel Supply Co., Stockholm (overall)
Nagra, Nuclear Waste Management in Switzerland: Feasibility Studies and Safety Analyses, NGB 85-01/09, Nagra, Baden (overall)
McKinley, S.I.; (1991) Integrated Near-field assessment, SKB technical report 91-59, SKB, Stockholm
AECL-10009, (for Nagra), "Radionuclide Sorption Database for Swiss Safety Assessments", Pinawa, Manitoba

These are a few that look especially worthy; There are literally hundreds more in the book, though not all about boreholes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 08, 2013 11:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
KitemanSA wrote:
jagdish wrote:
DUPIC is really no more than 'Do something about waste action'. Used fuel is currently choking up the nuclear power system. The solution is fast reactors, fast MOS possibly better than solid fuel version.
Used fuel/reprocessed plutonium could be shared round the world to provide power from fast reactors. Fission products could be buried down the boreholes. The choice is really the solid or fluid fuel, or just worrying about it. Non-proliferation is just a fancy name for procrastination as the rogue states (Pakistan, North Korea) will get their bombs anyway.

Used fuel also can provide the kindling to start the thorium LFTR fires burning, and there would be no second generation waste to worry about. PuF3, PuFFF the magic fuel!

I'd rather have a fast version of LFTR. It will be more compact and do without 7Li unobtainium.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sep 09, 2013 12:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
jagdish wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
jagdish wrote:
DUPIC is really no more than 'Do something about waste action'. Used fuel is currently choking up the nuclear power system. The solution is fast reactors, fast MOS possibly better than solid fuel version.
Used fuel/reprocessed plutonium could be shared round the world to provide power from fast reactors. Fission products could be buried down the boreholes. The choice is really the solid or fluid fuel, or just worrying about it. Non-proliferation is just a fancy name for procrastination as the rogue states (Pakistan, North Korea) will get their bombs anyway.

Used fuel also can provide the kindling to start the thorium LFTR fires burning, and there would be no second generation waste to worry about. PuF3, PuFFF the magic fuel!

I'd rather have a fast version of LFTR. It will be more compact and do without 7Li unobtainium.


But require what, ten times as much fuel?
If there MUST be fast reactors, I guess MS versions would be best.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2013 1:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 01, 2010 11:33 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Berkeley, CA
Cyril R wrote:
Lots of water, plus critical reactors, yet the fission products didn't get out even in 1.5 billion years. No engineered barriers, no isolating layers, just porous sandstone. Shows you how paranoid we are about geo storage.


The fission products did get out. It's the TRUs that were contained.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 28, 2015 3:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 511
US to trial pioneering deep-hole nuclear waste disposal technique

If it's truly waste, and not valuable fuel, then this seems like a sensible strategy for disposing of waste, 5km underground.

One of the problems with waste disposal, is that, even if provably safe, locals don't like it. This technique could be used in really remote locations where there are no locals - like St Kilda or Bikini Atoll (though the latter might be regarded as provocative).

I think there was a mention here of borehole disposal. This article talks about solid waste: "Firstly, the waste would be slowly lowered down the hole in metal containers."

I wonder whether it would be better to granulate the waste and use fracking technology to pump it kilometres underground. With directional drilling one site could handle unlimited amounts of waste. Although nuclear waste and fracking is a rather provocative combination.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 28, 2015 10:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
Most of the reactors are being built in China, India, Russia and Korea which all believe a closed cycle. They have to temporarily store it till it is reprocessed to utilise all the actinides present in the used fuel. Fission products and cladding and accessories are the real waste. The last are best stored in boreholes.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 29, 2015 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 05, 2011 6:59 pm
Posts: 1335
Location: NoOPWA
jagdish wrote:
Most of the reactors are being built in China, India, Russia and Korea which all believe a closed cycle. They have to temporarily store it till it is reprocessed to utilise all the actinides present in the used fuel. Fission products and cladding and accessories are the real waste. The last are best stored in boreholes.
The cladding, maybe. But the FPs can be seperated into stable and active portions and only the active should be DEEP sixed.

_________________
DRJ : Engineer - NAVSEA : (Retired)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Apr 29, 2015 1:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 1946
Location: Montreal
The cladding is typically zircalloy.

ZrF4 could be useful in MSRs.

PS. Dolf -- a message for you: viewtopic.php?p=62018#p62018


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 01, 2015 5:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 2240
If you can handle it remotely, it can be used as ZrF4 salt or even recycled as metal!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 21, 2018 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3784
Location: Alabama
This Father-Daughter Team Says It Has a Cheaper, Safer Way to Bury Nuclear Waste


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group