nuclear-news

MOLTEX nuclear reactors: The whole thing is a scam, wasting tax payer money again.

14 Mar 24

Why this pyro-reprocessing?  Vitrification is the proven and researched method for reprocessed nuclear fuel waste.   The U.S. NUCLEAR WASTE TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARD  states, ” HLW is vitrified by mixing it with a combination of silica sand and other glass-forming chemicals, heating the mixture to very high temperatures [approximately 1,150°C (2,100°F)] until it melts, and pouring the molten material into stainless steel canisters where it cools to form a glass.  Vitrification is used in several countries to immobilize HLW because it has advantages over other modes of treatment.  It is a well-demonstrated technology resulting from more than 40 years of industrial experience, it can be used for a wide range of HLW compositions, it is a continuous process that can be applied to large volumes of HLW, and the resulting glass product is chemically durable in many geologic disposal environments.” https://www.nwtrb.gov/docs/default-source/facts-sheets/vitrified_hlw.pdf?sfvrsn=18

A soluble corrosive salt from pyro-reprocessing is not an acceptable wasteform. 

It is important to realize even with glass vitrification there will still be an off gas waste stream containing the volatiles such as Tc99, I131 and C14, the major contributors to dose in the Seaborn EIS. There needs to be extensive research done on immobilization on the volatile off gas reprocessed waste stream. 

Why is it that for reprocessed waste disposal the volatile, mobile, major contributors to dose consequence are ignored?  

In fact the cost and feasibility of waste disposal and decommissioning in general is never properly accounted for in the development of nuclear reactors. New reactors are not designed to make decommissioning feasible without huge cost and  extensive worker radiation  exposure. This is short sighted madness that the nuclear industry is allowed to get away with. 

Guess what? There is no nuclear waste, no nuclear proliferation and no possible nuclear meltdown from the much cheaper solar wind and deep geothermal power options. Is this not obvious? Yet government money (our money) is poured into nuclear energy. Did the public have a say in this? No expenditure without representation? Can we dump the reactors into Boston harbour? 

March 14, 2024 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Canada, spinbuster