Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumTen New Nuclear Power Reactors Connected to Grid in 2015
We hope this reference guide is a useful source of information for those countries interested in assessing the benefits of having nuclear power in their energy mix and for those already using nuclear power, said Mikhail Chudakov, IAEA Deputy Director-General and Head of the Department of Nuclear Energy.
This is the 36th edition of Reference Data Series No.2, containing summarized information on power reactors operating, under construction and shut down as well as performance data on reactors operating in the IAEA Member States.
Data on the types of reactors, nuclear electricity production, the categories of new reactors connected to the grid; technical terms used during the decommissioning process of reactors, and the specification and performance history data of operating reactors, are included information.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/ten-new-nuclear-power-reactors-connected-to-grid-in-2015-highest-number-since-1990
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)FBaggins
(26,696 posts)Bury it or recycle it. Simple.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Burying it, no.
By the way, I've never heard how they would/could recycle it. Can you give me some info on that?
FBaggins
(26,696 posts)The issue is that fission products and their daughter elements grow to a level where the ongoing fission of the core is impacted - but that's still a very low percentage of the total volume of the fuel (less than 5%). The remaining 95% can be reused - leaving a much smaller volume (of an already tiny volume) to be disposed of.
It was a political decision to elect a "once through" fuel cycle - there's no technical reason requiring it. It's also a political decision to hold up long-term storage.
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)Used down to the very nub, as it were. Thousand of years of half life and we can't use it?
Solve the disposal problem and I can get behind nuclear energy. Although I would just as soon they don't build the plants on earthquake faults.
notemason
(298 posts)NNadir
(33,368 posts)There is not one person who carries on about Fukushima who ever stops to consider that 19,000 people die each day from air pollution.
As I pointed out elsewhere in connection with this selective attention, a Nobel Laureate did note this much, but of course, none of this compares to the fantasies connected with what could have happened.
What in the wonderful minds of people reporting this would the "worsened" case involve?
Anti-nuke ignorance kills people.
FBaggins
(26,696 posts)But that's never stopped the anti-nuke fringe.
Yes, a spent fuel fire could be more significant than Fukushima. But spent fuel fires aren't particularly difficult to avoid. Note that they didn't even occur at Fukushima - after a horrific combination of events.