Germany: Nuclear power plants to close by 2022

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,006
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
Wasn't Yucca Mountain formed by volcanoes? Ones that last erupted well within the last 100000 years? Great idea for a "forever" storage site.

Which is well over the half-life of Plutonium-239. So if we are to assume that the volcano erupts in 100,000 or even 50,000 year intervals, the Plutonium waste will essentially be gone.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,798
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Which is well over the half-life of Plutonium-239. So if we are to assume that the volcano erupts in 100,000 or even 50,000 year intervals, the Plutonium waste will essentially be gone.

In 50000 years, a quarter of the Pu-239 will still be there.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,006
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
In 50000 years, a quarter of the Pu-239 will still be there.

Indeed, but when Pu-239 makes up 0.8% of the Nuclear waste, one can consider it "essentially" gone in 50,000 years time.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,798
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Indeed, but when Pu-239 makes up 0.8% of the Nuclear waste, one can consider it "essentially" gone in 50,000 years time.

Most spent fuel is indeed U-238, but as I've written on the previous page Pu-239 is about five orders of magnitude more active... so if you have two orders of magnitude less Pu-239, you're still three orders of magnitude on the nasty side of things. When you're still in orders of magnitude, a quarter or not - two half lives or not - doesn't really change things much.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
22,146
Location
Michigan USA
Groundwater that sits 1,000 ft below dry rock and drains to a basin that isn't used by anyone. I.e. in the very unlikely chance that the water does get contaminated, it poses no risk to humans or the anything that lives in the vicinity because the water isn't used by anybody.

Putting the fuel in a dry cask and then shipping it to Yucca is the best we can do and frankly I don't have a problem with it considering that area has been used as a test bed for Nuclear weapons already.


That water ends up in natural aquifers. Where do you think wells get water from?
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,006
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
That water ends up in natural aquifers. Where do you think wells get water from?

As I said, there aren't any wells that pull water from that particular acquifer, it's closed.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
22,146
Location
Michigan USA
Groundwater that sits 1,000 ft below dry rock and drains to a basin that isn't used by anyone. I.e. in the very unlikely chance that the water does get contaminated, it poses no risk to humans or the anything that lives in the vicinity because the water isn't used by anybody.

Putting the fuel in a dry cask and then shipping it to Yucca is the best we can do and frankly I don't have a problem with it considering that area has been used as a test bed for Nuclear weapons already.

As I said, there aren't any wells that pull water from that particular acquifer, it's closed.


STATE OF NEVADA AND RELATED FINDINGS INDICATING THAT THE PROPOSED YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT AS A REPOSITORY


Post-closure Geohydrology Disqualifies the Site
The discovery of atmospheric nuclear bomb-pulse chlorine-36 in fracture coatings in and below the Exploratory Studies Facility at the Yucca Mountain site has provided convincing evidence that infiltrating fluid moves rapidly through fractures in Yucca Mountain from the ground surface to the water table. This is in direct conflict with the DOE's original unsaturated zone flow model and has caused the DOE to change its model from one depicting flow dominated by very slow movement through the rock pores to one in which rapid fracture flow dominates. The State has been advocating and developing such a model for a number of years and, as a result has determined that the Yucca Mountain site cannot meet the groundwater travel time requirements of the DOE's Part 960 siting guidelines and NRC's licensing rule, 10 CFR Part 60.

The Guidelines for site recommendation state: "A site shall be disqualified at any time during the siting process if the evidence supports a finding by the DOE that a disqualifying condition exists or the qualifying condition of any system or technical guideline cannot be met." 10 CFR Part 960.3-1-5.

The Post-Closure Geohydrology Disqualifying Condition states: "A site shall be disqualified if the pre-waste emplacement ground-water travel time from the disturbed zone to the accessible environment is expected to be less than 1,000 years along any pathway of likely and significant radionuclide travel." 960.4-2-1. The Qualifying Condition states that the site must permit compliance with the requirements of NRC's Part 60 licensing rule. The NRC's groundwater travel time requirement is that "The pre-waste emplacement groundwater travel time along the fastest path of likely radionuclide travel from the disturbed zone to the accessible environment shall be at least 1,000 years or such other travel time as may be approved or specified by the Commission." 10 CFR Part 60.113. The Commission has not approved or specified any groundwater travel time requirement other than 1,000 years.

The chlorine-36 data indicate that the groundwater travel time through the fractured unsaturated zone of Yucca Mountain can be as little as 50 years and probably much less from the underground repository disturbed zone to the water table. The DOE total system performance assessment agrees with the fast travel time and further acknowledges that the fractures are "likely and significant" radionuclide pathways. An April 23, 1998 DOE presentation to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board stated in regard to the unsaturated zone, "Long-term average climate travel times are less than 1,000 years to the water table for unretarded [radionuclide] species."

Travel time to the accessible environment in the saturated zone, once the infiltrating water reaches the water table is also rapid. This travel time has been modeled for an accessible environment boundary at a distance of 5 km from the disturbed zone (from the original EPA standard, 40 CFR Part 191), and at 20 km (DOE's current interim standard). Using the longer 20 km (12 mile) distance, DOE's uncertainty analysis of its Total System Performance Assessment (presented June 24, 1998 to the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board) indicates that travel time in the saturated zone can be as little as about 500 years.

State researchers also have modeled groundwater travel time in the saturated zone. Using what they consider to be more realistic parameter values than those used by DOE for infiltration and flux and using water temperature differences as an indicator of flow, they find the maximum 20 km ground water travel time in the saturated zone to be on the order of 100 years.

In either case, it is evident that groundwater travel time, as defined in the DOE's siting guidelines and the NRC's repository licensing rule, is less than 1,000 years - a condition that requires that the site be disqualified under DOE's site recommendation guidelines.

The Site Recommendation Guidelines (10 CFR Part 960) constitute the technical criteria by which the Secretary determines whether a proposed repository site is suitable for development as a repository, according to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Act further requires, "If the Secretary at any time determines the Yucca Mountain site to be unsuitable for development as a repository, the Secretary shall (A) terminate all site characterization activities at such site..." (emphasis added.) With the current knowledge and demonstration that the Yucca Mountain site meets the Guidelines' post-closure geohydrology condition for disqualification, it is the Secretary's duty now to find the site unsuitable for development as a repository and terminate all site characterization activities.

(report also contains these items, and several others)

Fault and Earthquake Hazard

Volcanic Hazard

CHANGING RULES AND STRATEGIES FOR THE YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,416
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
Man if you guys were in charge, we'd still be hanging out in a cave too afraid to go outside.
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,006
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
You also said two half lives are enough to make pu239 harmless :dunno:

That's not what I said.

We have solutions to dealing with Pu239, your fear-mongering isn't a solution.
 

MacGuffin

Forum Addict
Joined
Mar 29, 2008
Messages
8,309
Location
Wilhelmshaven, Germany
Car(s)
'17 Ford Mustang GT Fastback
@narf: He just presented alternative facts :p
 

Cellos88GT

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
4,006
Location
Santa Cruz, CA
Car(s)
2 Fox Mustangs and a '00 VFR
I don't see the word "harmless" used anywhere in that quote.
 
Last edited:

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
22,146
Location
Michigan USA
Still does not help the aquifer.
 

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,416
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
These are still not problems which are 100% conclusively bad enough to rule out Nuclear power. If all coal and gas plants in the world were to be replaced by the equivalent production in nuclear plants right this second, would the amount of lives affected adversely rise, cos of the waste, or be reduced, cos of the amount of harm done by heavy pollution? That's the real question.
 
Top