Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

IOSH Forums are closing 

The IOSH Forums will close on 5 January 2026 as part of a move to a new, more secure online community platform.

All IOSH members will be invited to join the new platform following the launch of a new member database in the New Year. You can continue to access this website until the closure date. 

For more information, please visit the IOSH website.

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 27 March 2008 11:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams A Question to the members of the Nuclear Community. Firstly, with regard to the U.K. Government's commitment to initiate 3 strategic initiatives to control carbon emissions. In the interest of time management I shall restrict the content of this initial post to Strategy N.o.1: Nuclear, The French Connection. However if there is sufficient interest generated by the forum members, Strategy N.o.2: Pearl Project G.T.L.,Qatar and N.o.3: Offshore Installations Decommissioning, China, mat be discussed. Strategy N.o.1: Nuclear. The most recent Anglo French talks has implied that Energy De France maybe a Prime Mover in the Construction of EPR 3rd Generation Nuclear Power Stations. Apparently the U.K. Government indicate that there may be potential for 12 of these Power Stations,however this maybe a deliberate inflation of numbers, a more achievable figure maybe between 6 to 8. Finaly, my Question is...how much nuclear waste would one of these Power Stations produce ?, i.e. Volume and pay load weight of spent fuel rods and associated waste product. Regards, Garry...
Admin  
#2 Posted : 27 March 2008 14:01:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John J I'm working on it... I vaguely remember older 1000MWe reactors produced about 25 tonnes of spent fuel per year which can be stored or reprocessed (97% of it reclaimed leaving about 3% highly active waste).
Admin  
#3 Posted : 27 March 2008 15:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Doug Kelly You could try this link - loads of information that I'm certain will answer your questions http://www.epr-reactor.c...sp?P=139&L=EN&id_cat=1.2
Admin  
#4 Posted : 28 March 2008 13:32:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams John,Thanks for the information and thanks to Dough for pointing me in the right direction. As this is Friday and it has become a day for light hearted banter may I submit a Free radical, thinking out of the box, outlandish control measure to control Nuclear Waste Management. Nuclear Waste Management Strategy: Return to Source. Procedure. 1 Launch craft with Nuclear Waste pay load. 2 Deploy solar sail when craft is free from Earth's gravitational pall. 3 Set coordinates en-route to the Sun. 4 At the half way point gravity will pull the craft towards the Sun. 5 Ultimately the craft and its payload will be incinerated. 6 The radioactive material is returned to its source. Perhaps the most outlandish thing is that it may work...but then what do I know !. whats your view ? Regards, Garry...
Admin  
#5 Posted : 31 March 2008 16:40:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jeffrey Watt I like it. Why don't we pay the ex soviet states to store it in Chernobyl...or the US to store it at the Trinity site....or in an Atoll etc.- basically somewhere where the tea boils itself and everyone including the wildlife are permanently hi-vis due to the background radiation. Sure there may be a downside but I can't think of any off hand. Radioactive regards Jeff
Admin  
#6 Posted : 31 March 2008 16:55:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Haggis JM Gerry, fully approve of your suggestion, but how much hydrocarbons consumed, and CO2 emitted during launch? ;o)
Admin  
#7 Posted : 31 March 2008 16:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Pete Longworth So That's why they all glow in the dark. I thought it was because they all had Readybrek for breakfast. (Showing my age now)
Admin  
#8 Posted : 31 March 2008 17:03:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams Jeffrey Yes why not given that these sites are already contaminated, they may be candidates for consideration, however to compound the degree of radioactive material to saturation point may not be a consideration for further generations to deal with. Perhaps the horse has already bolted, however I have not doubt that future generations will consider it prudent to dispose of Nuclear Waste outwith our immediate atmosphere...ultimately mankind will reach a point where cost will no longer be an issue and free radical new proposals will have to be tabled. Whats your view ?. Regards, Garry...
Admin  
#9 Posted : 31 March 2008 17:09:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steve e ashton Garry: Sorry to a be wet blanket but the 'solar sail' idea will not work. A solar sail can only ever drive the payload away from the sun. It is not like a wind-driven sail on earth, where resistance to a second fluid (water) or friction with land (land yachts etc ) enable craft to sail 'into the wind' Basically, there is no second fluid. Its a vacuum. Steve
Admin  
#10 Posted : 31 March 2008 17:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams Haggis Options 1. Line the fuel tanks on scheduled launch craft, jettison fuel tanks as per norm then deploy the solar sail. 2. Hydrogen cells may be substituted for conventional fuel at some point in the near future...option. 3. The use of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon based fossil fuel may reduce the percentage of harmful waste product that you refer too. One only requires sufficient fuel too brake free from the gravitational pull of the earth circa 81...82> miles. Regards, Garry...
Admin  
#11 Posted : 31 March 2008 17:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Garry Adams Steven The solar sail would gather power to supply the propulsion system, given that there is no resistance in a vacuum, I would expect the craft would be propelled to words the Sun ?. regards, Garry...
Admin  
#12 Posted : 01 April 2008 13:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By steve e ashton Away from the sun Garry. Sorry. Like a comet tail - Solar wind is always away from the sun. But why not use the more obvious - nuclear waste - active - add water - gives steam - use as reaction fuel , rocket motor - straight into sun. Risk assess - from launch break up - too much. Way too much. Solution (taking your idea one step less far) return it where it came from. Transport it to S Africa, Canada and Russia. Put it back in the hole it came from. Scrape some sand over it. Wander off looking innocent and whistling nonchalantly. Alternatively - accept we have a fuel need, and must pay the cost of that need until such time as we can wean ourselves off it. So the human / animal gene research recently discussed nationally - can we create a human / penguin hybrid that won't require so much heating fuel in future? And cross it with carrot DNA so we don't need fuel for lighting. Add a little Elephant DNA so we don't need mechanical handling equipment - the possiblilities of the new tech. are endless. Steve
Admin  
#13 Posted : 02 April 2008 10:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By John J We could follow the suggestion of placing all spent waste under the rainforests (James Lovelock I believe). It would certainly reduce the liklihood of them being dug up and, looking at the area around Tschernobyl, leave the wildlife to thrive. The reality is that there is a lot of value in making the fuel into Mixed Oxide elements and getting even more use out of them, John
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.