Why Can't We Neutralize Nuclear Waste?

Posted: November 6, 2009

(Richard DeWeese/iStockphoto)

How come, with all our technology and great scientific brains, we can't figure out how to neutralize nuclear waste? What is the problem (in terms a layman can understand)?

Margaret Tabar
Pontiac, Mich.

___

The federal government and the nuclear industry figure it will take decades to create the kind of technology that would reduce the volume and radio-toxicity of high-level nuclear waste so that it can be recycled to obtain more energy and improve waste disposal, according to Steve Kraft, senior director of used fuel management at the Nuclear Energy Institute.

The reason no plan has been developed to take care of waste? "It's extremely complicated," said Ed Lyman, senior staff scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Nuclear waste is a mixture of many different radioactive isotopes, all with specific properties. No one-size-fits-all solution exists to convert those into less hazardous materials," he said.

Lyman said the problem with reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is that it can be hazardous, expensive and time-consuming—taking thousands of years to fully recycle the waste. And there's another big potential problem, Lyman said: Plutonium that can be generated by the process can be used to make a nuclear bomb.

Kraft said that, for now, waste can be safely stored at nuclear power plant sites or central facilities. And no matter what technology is developed in the future, there always will be material that will have to be disposed of in a repository.

Mark Williams
AP Energy Writer
Columbus, Ohio

 

 Follow U.S. News Science on Twitter.

Underlying physics

To be even more basic, remember that nuclear activity isn't affected by the tools we use to manage chemical waste. You can freeze radioactive material or burn it or chemically combine it with something else, and it will still be just as radioactive. (You know the little cartoon of an atom, with big balls in the middle and little ones orbiting? All of chemistry and 'natural' energy use happens by rearranging the little orbiting balls (electrons). Radioactivity comes from instability in the big balls, which aren't affected by the little balls.)

When we use nuclear reactions, some of the radioactive atoms finish up in stable, not-radioactive states, but we never *completely* use them up. We get a lot of byproducts and altered atoms, too. Those are now radioactive, and they're all mixed up and all different types, so the collection of them isn't suitable as fuel in most kinds of reactors. And that's where Ed Lyman's explanation starts.

There were, originally, plans to collect, sort, and re-use the nuclear power waste in the US, but it turns out to be harder and more expensive than we thought. Worse, it means shipping all our waste to one site in the country. No state wants nuclear waste shipped through without producing power, even before we worried about terrorist attacks to spread or steal the waste.

C of CA @ Nov 12, 2009 11:31:47 AM

Steve

The article says 'can be safely stored' [for now]. To be fair and more accurate, maybe mention " at great cost, even to future generations! " And that's assuming no great disasters, leakage that ruins a region's water or land, terror attacks or other unknown's [$$$$$].

It'd be nice if nuclear or coal could help the US, and world, get away from [imported] oil or other dirty energy. And they may be necessary for years until cleaner alternatives can be significant.

But clearly a big push for alternatives, and conservation like simple weatherization of homes, can not only be easier, but also faster, cheaper, and with only minor potential problems [like with wind and birds]. I think Obama appreciates this but still is not pushing hard enough for alternatives and especially conservation.

Steve R. of CO @ Nov 08, 2009 05:17:50 AM

Add Your Thoughts
About You

advertisement

National Science Foundation

NSF

Wolves, Moose and Soil Nutrients: The Unexpected Connection

Researchers were startled to discover "hot spots" of forest fertility.

Predicting Who Will Survive Skin Cancer

Using new techniques, researchers may now be able to predict the survivability of skin cancer.

Record Highs Far Outpace Lows Across U.S.

Daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the past decade.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

Subscribe

U.S. News Digital Weekly

A weekly insider's guide to politics and policy — in a multimedia, digital format. 52 issues for $19.95!

U.S. News & World Report

6 months of U.S. News & World Report's print edition for only $15. Save up to 67% off the cover price!