Smeagol-Gollum
17-04-2004, 13:16
Let's nuke the sun - British know-how tackles a problem
By Paul Brown in London
April 17, 2004
Fire nuclear waste into the sun . . . put it in Antarctic ice sheets so it sinks by its own heat to the bedrock . . . put it under the Earth's crust so it is sucked to the molten core.
These are three of 14 options the Government's advisers are considering to get rid of Britain's nuclear waste legacy.
All options are technically possible, but many are risky.
Most have political drawbacks and are expensive - about £50 billion ($120 billion).
But the Government has decided to tackle the problem and last year appointed a committee to explore possibilities for a publicly acceptable solution - something that governments have failed to do for 50 years.
The committee's options range from the exotic to the well established. And most have their difficulties. Firing waste into the sun or outer space may rid Earth of the problem but the possibility of rocket failure makes it seem too much of a gamble.
The Antarctica solution, allowing heat-producing waste to bury itself in the ice, runs into the difficulty that the internationally agreed Antarctic Treaty bans such activity. The last pristine continent is supposed to be untouched by nuclear material.
Sub-seabed disposal, where waste is placed in a hole or dropped in special penetrators to bury itself in the seabed, may be the best technical option. Even if the packages eventually rot and the radioactivity escapes it will be diluted by the sea. But sea dumping is banned.
Some of the other ideas, such as placing it deep in the ground -either to lose it in the Earth's mantle or in deep stratas where it would remain - have been tried by Russians and Americans.
The Swedes are successfully using a deep depository, but so far Britain has proved unable to find suitable geological formations. Exporting nuclear waste is also against government policy and likely to draw international protests.
All of the ideas remain on the table and none is a frontrunner. The present policy, by default, is storage, but with a government committed to safeguarding the environment for future generations this, too, may be ruled out as an option.
Nuclear waste stays dangerous for 250,000 years and even the best constructed concrete bunker is likely to need upgrading every 100 years or so.
Martin Forwood, of Cumbrians Opposed to Radioactive Environment, who was due to meet members of the government committee this week, was dismissive of the 14 ideas: "We thought all these madcap schemes had been junked donkey's years ago. The only sensible solution is to store it where it rightfully belongs - in above-ground, custom-built concrete stores at the site of origin."
The Government estimates it will soon have 500,000 tonnes of higher level nuclear waste it has no home for, even if it never builds another nuclear power station. But by far the largest stores and the most dangerous high level heat-producing liquid wastes are at Sellafield, where Britain's largest nuclear facilities were built and developed.
The Guardian
SOURCE : http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055655956.html?from=storyrhs
COMMENT
Not a subject I had ever really thought much about, but some intriguing possibilities.
By Paul Brown in London
April 17, 2004
Fire nuclear waste into the sun . . . put it in Antarctic ice sheets so it sinks by its own heat to the bedrock . . . put it under the Earth's crust so it is sucked to the molten core.
These are three of 14 options the Government's advisers are considering to get rid of Britain's nuclear waste legacy.
All options are technically possible, but many are risky.
Most have political drawbacks and are expensive - about £50 billion ($120 billion).
But the Government has decided to tackle the problem and last year appointed a committee to explore possibilities for a publicly acceptable solution - something that governments have failed to do for 50 years.
The committee's options range from the exotic to the well established. And most have their difficulties. Firing waste into the sun or outer space may rid Earth of the problem but the possibility of rocket failure makes it seem too much of a gamble.
The Antarctica solution, allowing heat-producing waste to bury itself in the ice, runs into the difficulty that the internationally agreed Antarctic Treaty bans such activity. The last pristine continent is supposed to be untouched by nuclear material.
Sub-seabed disposal, where waste is placed in a hole or dropped in special penetrators to bury itself in the seabed, may be the best technical option. Even if the packages eventually rot and the radioactivity escapes it will be diluted by the sea. But sea dumping is banned.
Some of the other ideas, such as placing it deep in the ground -either to lose it in the Earth's mantle or in deep stratas where it would remain - have been tried by Russians and Americans.
The Swedes are successfully using a deep depository, but so far Britain has proved unable to find suitable geological formations. Exporting nuclear waste is also against government policy and likely to draw international protests.
All of the ideas remain on the table and none is a frontrunner. The present policy, by default, is storage, but with a government committed to safeguarding the environment for future generations this, too, may be ruled out as an option.
Nuclear waste stays dangerous for 250,000 years and even the best constructed concrete bunker is likely to need upgrading every 100 years or so.
Martin Forwood, of Cumbrians Opposed to Radioactive Environment, who was due to meet members of the government committee this week, was dismissive of the 14 ideas: "We thought all these madcap schemes had been junked donkey's years ago. The only sensible solution is to store it where it rightfully belongs - in above-ground, custom-built concrete stores at the site of origin."
The Government estimates it will soon have 500,000 tonnes of higher level nuclear waste it has no home for, even if it never builds another nuclear power station. But by far the largest stores and the most dangerous high level heat-producing liquid wastes are at Sellafield, where Britain's largest nuclear facilities were built and developed.
The Guardian
SOURCE : http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/04/16/1082055655956.html?from=storyrhs
COMMENT
Not a subject I had ever really thought much about, but some intriguing possibilities.