6 underground Hanford nuclear tanks leaking

[zenwalk]

Theoretically

Although storing radioactive waste underground on top of various fault lines with a history of seismic activity might not be the best idea.

How does it get transported from point A to point B? Is it liquid?

[Joy in Mudville]

How does it get transported from point A to point B? Is it liquid?

The best technology we currently have is a process called vitrification. The liquid waste is mixed with materials that after heating will cool and solidify in large casks. The casks are then transported via train and/or truck. Depending on where the waste is coming from the trains will go right through downtown Las Vegas.

[zenwalk]

The best technology we currently have is a process called vitrification. The liquid waste is mixed with materials that after heating will cool and solidify in large casks. The casks are then transported via train and/or truck. Depending on where the waste is coming from the trains will go right through downtown Las Vegas.

Are there any estimates as to how many trainloads are involved?

[Joy in Mudville]

Are there any estimates as to how many trainloads are involved?

If you are talking Yucca Mountain you are talking about waste from the roughly 110 commercial nuclear reactors throughout the continental US including Calvert Cliffs, Pilgrim, Salem, NJ, Indian Point, et cetera as well as Savannah River, Oak Ridge, Rocky Flats, Hanford, and the Idaho Engineering Lab just for starters. Literally, thousands of shipments over the course of years, if not decades.

Remember this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SrFQiqzw6s

[Joy in Mudville]

We're talking about 70,000 metric tons of radioactive waste.

[cprenegade]

How does France handle their nuclear waste problem? As I understand it, a large portion of their energy needs are provided through nuclear plants. Surely they must have nuclear waste to dispose of. I honestly don't know the answer.

[Joy in Mudville]

How does France handle their nuclear waste problem? As I understand it, a large portion of their energy needs are provided through nuclear plants. Surely they must have nuclear waste to dispose of. I honestly don't know the answer.

France gets most of it's electricity from nuclear power. They reprocess the waste at La Hague - essentially extracting plutonium and uranium from the spent nuclear fuel - and then run it through reactors again. They have a massive amount of radioactive waste and they are currently exploring deep geologic storage in the eastern part of the country. There have been repeated controversies surrounding La Hague and accusations of both major and daily radioactive releases at that plant.

[grggngll]

So, back to the tanks.
They leak, you find out, you build a new (and better) tank, then transfer the contents.

Why has this not happened?

[veritas]

Even if...

1) Yucca had gotten the green light that facility would not yet be ready to receive the Hanford Waste

and

2) The waste in question would not be ready to be shipped until at least 2019.

As usual, you are wrong.

Yucca was supposed to have started receiving its first shipments of nuclear waste in 1998. It was hamstrung by legal challenges which prevented the project from getting untracked. The point is that it was a viable idea that was stopped by the very same people now whining that nuclear waste is being stored in leaking barrels and holding ponds.

[Gopher]

So, back to the tanks.
They leak, you find out, you build a new (and better) tank, then transfer the contents.

Why has this not happened?

Stop for a moment and think about who is in charge of the operation. That should answer your question.

[AttackPlanR]

This is why moving it all to Yucca Mt. made a great deal of sense. Naturally, environuts prevented that.

I'm guessing that unless these omnipotent flannel wearing, tree hugging "environuts" that you mention have the ability to make rulings in courts, or appropriate money in Congress than you are sadly mistaken. Did they oppose it? Yes. Are they the reason the tanks are leaking in Washington? Nope.

We can not be passing the buck down the road on this any more.

[veritas]

I'm guessing that unless these omnipotent flannel wearing, tree hugging "environuts" that you mention have the ability to make rulings in courts, or appropriate money in Congress than you are sadly mistaken. Did they oppose it? Yes. Are they the reason the tanks are leaking in Washington? Nope.

We can not be passing the buck down the road on this any more.

I never said they were the reason the tanks are leaking. They are the reason that a viable plan was stopped. Having all this waste 2,000 ft underground in secure storage vaults is a good idea and we could have been moving it there for 15 years already.

[Joy in Mudville]

I never said they were the reason the tanks are leaking. They are the reason that a viable plan was stopped. Having all this waste 2,000 ft underground in secure storage vaults is a good idea and we could have been moving it there for 15 years already.

Again, the waste at Hanford is not movable. The plant being built to vitrify the waste so that it could be more safely transported is over budget and behind schedule. It may be up and running by 2019. So, even if Yucca was open, the waste would still be in the tanks at Hanford. Your whole premise is simply a strawman argument.

[sage]

And what is going to replace coal, nuclear, and gas?

You don't have a clue? Wind and Solar Power!
http://www.ecooutfitters.net/blog/20...lanets-future/

[grggngll]

I'm guessing that unless these omnipotent flannel wearing, tree hugging "environuts" that you mention have the ability to make rulings in courts, or appropriate money in Congress than you are sadly mistaken. Did they oppose it? Yes. Are they the reason the tanks are leaking in Washington? Nope.

We can not be passing the buck down the road on this any more.

Sure they are. Those are the folks 'inserted' at the EPA and NRC and all sorts of other government organizations that are working from within to obstruct, delay, distract etc.

My point was that leaking tanks can be fixed, and or replaced. That did not happen. The reason is political.

[grggngll]

You don't have a clue? Wind and Solar Power!
http://www.ecooutfitters.net/blog/20...lanets-future/

I am just hoping you are being facetious. Or are you making the point that we have grown accustomed to heating and cooling and electronics and it is time to do away with that all?

[veritas]

Again, the waste at Hanford is not movable. The plant being built to vitrify the waste so that it could be more safely transported is over budget and behind schedule. It may be up and running by 2019. So, even if Yucca was open, the waste would still be in the tanks at Hanford. Your whole premise is simply a strawman argument.

Baloney. My initial post referred to the movement of nuclear waste in general, not just from Hanford. I'm sure there are plenty of other sites out there that could have been cleaned up long ago if we simply had a repository for their contents. Again, we can thank the enviro extremists that we do not.

As for Hanford, there was nothing to keep it from being transported. If it was stored in tanks on the ground, it could just as easily be stored in tanks on train cars. By the time we get the safety aspect down to an acceptable level, the entire area will be radioactive and everyone will be complaining about why we had to vitrify the stuff to start with. In our efforts to make everything "risk free" we cause more problems than we solve.

[BiggSeth]

It's a mess that cant be solved by the minds that created it!

The United States has 104 commercial nuclear reactors providing about 20% of the nation’s electricity, but throughout their lifetimes, they’ve accumulated about 58,000 tons of nuclear waste. They produce about 2,000 tons annually.

Although recent developments are promising, Yucca Mountain http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/20/...nuclear-waste/ has been a political boondoggle for decades. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 set January 31, 1998, as the deadline for the federal government to begin receiving used fuel. The result has been billions of dollars in taxpayer liability. Furthermore, Yucca Mountain’s statutory limit has been set at 70,000 tons when, in fact, it could hold 120,000 tons or more. Yet, even with a 120,000 ton limit, if nuclear power production increased by 1.8 percent annually after 2010, Yucca would be full by 2030.
http://blog.heritage.org/2008/06/20/...nuclear-waste/

I thought we were fighting in Afghanistan so we could send all our nucelar waste there. Heck, we could just drop it off in Homer buckets. No one would care....

[Joy in Mudville]

Baloney. My initial post referred to the movement of nuclear waste in general, not just from Hanford. I'm sure there are plenty of other sites out there that could have been cleaned up long ago if we simply had a repository for their contents. Again, we can thank the enviro extremists that we do not.

As for Hanford, there was nothing to keep it from being transported. If it was stored in tanks on the ground, it could just as easily be stored in tanks on train cars. By the time we get the safety aspect down to an acceptable level, the entire area will be radioactive and everyone will be complaining about why we had to vitrify the stuff to start with. In our efforts to make everything "risk free" we cause more problems than we solve.

It is so hard for you to follow a conversation. The thread and the posts were about Hanford and the leaking tanks there. Nice dodge though.

Transporting the waste in it's current state would be insane.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2217417.html

You should stick to commenting on things that you actually know about.