[HN Gopher] US companies partner on nuclear recycling technology ___________________________________________________________________ US companies partner on nuclear recycling technology Author : PaulHoule Score : 36 points Date : 2022-07-11 18:57 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.world-nuclear-news.org) (TXT) w3m dump (www.world-nuclear-news.org) | LatteLazy wrote: | If we push ahead with nuclear as people want, there will be | trillions in clean up costs to be claimed. | PaulHoule wrote: | Humans already emit 35 billion metric tons of CO2 a year with | what ultimately will be deadly effect. (Just a matter of time | before a hot summer kills 1 million plus people in India.) $100 | per ton is an optimistic figure for capturing it out of the | atmosphere and injecting it underground, so that is $3.5 | trillion a year to clean out the stuff we put in that year. | | Fossil fuels: what are you going to do with the waste? | fundad wrote: | Money Printer Go Brrr | narrator wrote: | There will also be a lot of really cool work in tethered and/or | autonomous robotics. | ge96 wrote: | Automata (film) | narrator wrote: | I was reading about a lot of these nuclear cleanup projects | at Hanford and Fukushima and the only way to do it is with | specially designed robots that are highly radiation | resistant. This is difficult since the radiation regularly | causes them to glitch out permanently and radio | communication doesn't really work with that much radiation | around. They usually have to be tethered to be | controllable. | | https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/26/16030222/fukushima- | nuclea... | ge96 wrote: | I see that is pretty interesting. Surprised hardening | isn't enough. | | My comment was more on humanoid robots being powered by | small nuclear batteries. | PaulHoule wrote: | Hanford is a different situation from Fukushima in that | the wastes have had a long time to decay at Hanford but | Fukushima is still pretty fresh. | | The trouble at Hanford was that the current methods for | reprocessing produce a stream of fission product | raffinates that they originally stored in liquid form in | tanks. Later on the technology was developed to trap the | fission products in glass which is not too hard to | dispose of (and that decays mostly in 500 years) but the | Hanford tanks had started to fail before then. | | Future reprocessing plants will store liquid waste | temporarily but like THORP in the UK and COGEMA in France | they will plan on vitrification from day one. | omginternets wrote: | Are you suggesting this is somehow different from coal, oil and | gas? The only difference is that nuclear waste actually _can_ | be cleaned up and /or contained in the first place. You are | simply externalizing the health and environmental impact of | fossil fuels and calling it a day. | | (I am charitably assuming that you know enough about renewals | to know that they are not currently a realistic replacement for | the entirety of FFs.) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-07-11 23:00 UTC)