Nuclear Watch: Japan nuclear waste can be directly disposed of

[DeSwiss]

Deep13th Nuclear Waste Info * Published on Jul 25, 2014

The Japan Atomic Energy Agency is reported to be looking at the direct disposal of spent nuclear fuel instead of reprocessing it.

NHK has obtained a draft report compiled by the agency which analyzed the environmental impact of disposing of spent nuclear fuel.

The conclusion of the analysis is expected to touch off controversy, because the government has long maintained the policy of reprocessing all spent nuclear fuel. It has conducted few studies about disposing of it as waste.

Spent nuclear fuel is known to have higher radiation levels than high-level radioactive waste.

But the agency's draft report says it is technically possible to directly dispose of spent nuclear fuel at a low radiation level.

If spent nuclear fuel is buried 1,000 meters underground for 1 million years, the radiation level at the earth's surface will peak in 3,000 years, at 0.3 microsieverts per year.

Even though reprocessing remains official government policy, the Rokkasho reprocessing plant is nowhere near full operating capacity.

Japan's nuclear power plants have accumulated 17,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel.

The agency's analysis is expected to lead to greater attention on future discussions on dealing with the stockpile of spent nuclear fuel.

Professor Tatsujiro Suzuki at Nagasaki University says the conclusion that direct disposal is possible is a very important step forward. Suzuki is a former member of the government's Atomic Energy Commission.

Jul. 25, 2014 - Updated 11:06 UTC

http://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/nuclear.html

- Sure. Just bury it in the ground. Out of sight, out of mind. That always works just fine, doesn't it? Just ask the folks at Hanford. It'll probably never cause a problem at all....

[center]





[/center]



Someone's either trying to murder Japan, or they're trying to commit suicide.......

[caraher]

1. Bear in mind the decision context

They're basically talking about whether to continue to try to reprocess the fuel, extracting and using the plutonium in reactors, or dispose of it without reprocessing. They have the waste now, either way; the time to decide not to have it at all is long past.

Reprocessing only makes sense in the context of an ongoing commitment to nuclear (since in that scheme you reduce the waste by using it to fuel reactors such that, if all goes well, in the end you actually wind up with less waste). If you want to shut down all reactors, this direct disposal is really the only option (whether they do it in Japan or convince someone else to take it off their hands).

[DeSwiss]

2. The people want to curtail if not end nuclear......

...power use in Japan, and their leaders don't -- is what this amounts to from what I can reckon.

And that resistance seems to be growing and will soon hit its apex with the next storm or earthquake that rattles more of Fukushima loose.

You can only live in denial when you're intact. When shit starts falling off your body, game over. The Tokyo babies and kids are already showing the signs radiation exposure and will only further reduce their already dwindling population-building prospects. Japan appears to be in self-extinction mode.

So we'll have to wait and see about the context.

- But under any context, burying plutonium underground in a country as seismically-active as Japan is ludicrous on the face of it.

[caraher]

3. I agree Japan is near the bottom of the list of good burial sites

But who's going to take it off their hands? Should we open Yucca Mountain to them? (Whatever its demerits, it's certainly better geologically than Japan!)

[DeSwiss]

4. As their leaders seem hellbent upon......

...restarting their existing nuclear plants and continue discussions and funding for the building of new ones, then I'd say HELL NO! to Yucca Mountain or anywhere other than where it is.

This simply demonstrates that they haven't learned a damned thing. Nothing. (Japanese politeness to their leaders is literally ''killing them.'')

Besides, Yucca Mountain isn't an option for them nor US as it sits atop a fault line. (Yeah. They spent over $8 billion in tax dollars before they figure that one out).

And neither have we learned any damned thing. When we start getting irradiated from our own ancient failing systems, I suppose it may make the local news. Other than that, you won't know anything's changed until you start to glow, if you're waiting on the feds to say anything. You're shit out of luck. Which is why many are banding together to create their own radiation reporting networks.

We can't even begin to talk about solving the problem, until we top creating the problem.

The first step in finding a solution for this ''global problem'' is to stop making more of the shit to begin with.

- Until that happens its just verbal masturbation......

[caraher]

5. I think both things have to happen in parallel

The waste exists today. It would be foolish not to talk about where it should go until after the last nuclear plant shuts down.

My point was less that Yucca Mountain is a great site - I've not studied the issue enough to make my own assessment of whom to believe (a nuclear power agnostic geologist colleague of mine says Yucca Mountain is as good as it's likely to get, whatever its faults - and no pun was originally intended!) than that whatever doesn't burn up in someone's reactor necessarily will wind up in someone's backyard. Whose backyard that turns out to be will likely be driven more by money and political power than science.