The surprising afterlife of unwanted atom bombs(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
The surprising afterlife of unwanted atom bombs
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/17/science/retired-nuclear-bombs-b83.html
82 comments
https://archive.ph/dLR60
When I studied nuclear weapons history in college, the professor mentioned that an important purpose of decommissioning nuclear devices was to provide jobs for the engineers that built them so that they aren't financially tempted to build them for an enemy.
Another incentive is that, since it's invariably older devices that are decommissioned, you are getting rid of the most primitive and unstable weapons in your stock.
I met an drunk ex navy guy at a bar about 15 years ago. He talked about how certain USA allies wouldn’t allow ships carrying nuclear weapons to dock in their ports. He said however their was no restriction on carrying the parts necessary to assemble nuclear weapons. So maybe they take out a screw on all of the warheads before sailing into port.
>to provide jobs for the engineers that built them so that they aren't financially tempted to build them for an enemy
Isn't the threat of treason/jail enough of a deterrent for engineers not to build nuclear weapons for other countries?
Kind of like a beefed up NDA.
Isn't the threat of treason/jail enough of a deterrent for engineers not to build nuclear weapons for other countries?
Kind of like a beefed up NDA.
If you're building them for the enemy, good chance you are in another country and outside of the reach of US authorities.
If you're highly skilled in such a thing and unemployed, you may go where the jobs are. So probably a good idea to keep them happy and employed in USA.
If you're highly skilled in such a thing and unemployed, you may go where the jobs are. So probably a good idea to keep them happy and employed in USA.
threat of state violence only work against the poor.
after you join the elite you need market forces to be controled.
after you join the elite you need market forces to be controled.
Since when are nuclear engineers "the elite"? Last time I checked the salaries never approached Bezos lifestyle level nor do they have any social or political influence.
Should you get caught developing nuclear weapons for another state, what's stopping the US government from going after you Snowden style, cancelling your passport, seizing your assets, extradition orders to every country?
Should you get caught developing nuclear weapons for another state, what's stopping the US government from going after you Snowden style, cancelling your passport, seizing your assets, extradition orders to every country?
Related: this incredible essay from the LRB years ago about working in a nuclear arms factory
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n15/mike-kirby/diary
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n15/mike-kirby/diary
Here a nice thing of nuclear warhead maintenance/decommisioning of nuclear warhead. The article discuss mostly about the plutonium cores, but modern weapons uses triutium to boost the yield, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon. Tritium is faintly radioactive, and it decays over time in the stable helium-3. This is a quite rare isotope of helium, in comparison to the much abundant He4. He3 is much needed in dilition refrigerators, the big machines often seen in advestisment of quantum computer. So such activities on nuclear weapons are the source of a critical and scarce ingredient for quantum computing!
Likewise, for fusion experiments.
I see assertions in planning documents that the supply of tritium on hand is wholly inadequate for planned research operations on ITER, never mind its successor imagined to be built in such a way as to be able to drive a steam turbine, or likewise SPARC or its imagined successor. I.e. there is not enough for either program, never mind both.
And Helion's D-3He reactor would need lots of 3He, and be utterly dependent on making more, itself. It takes 12 years for half of your stock of tritium to spontaneously become the needed 3He, and no possibility of hurrying it along.
I see assertions in planning documents that the supply of tritium on hand is wholly inadequate for planned research operations on ITER, never mind its successor imagined to be built in such a way as to be able to drive a steam turbine, or likewise SPARC or its imagined successor. I.e. there is not enough for either program, never mind both.
And Helion's D-3He reactor would need lots of 3He, and be utterly dependent on making more, itself. It takes 12 years for half of your stock of tritium to spontaneously become the needed 3He, and no possibility of hurrying it along.
The US has been moving away from high-yield bombs for a while; here's the highest yield bombs in the US arsenal and the dates of their retirement:
B41: 25MT, retired in 1976
B53: 9MT retired in 2011
B83: 1.2MT retired 2022
B41: 25MT, retired in 1976
B53: 9MT retired in 2011
B83: 1.2MT retired 2022
in the world of nuclear weapons i didn't think 1.2MT was that particularly high of a yield. Wikipedia leads me to believe that the majority of nuclear weapons deployed in the US are in the 100-500KT range. Given that yields are shrinking (i assume globally as well) I wonder how that impacts fallout prediction maps that probably haven't been updated in a long time. Also, assuming the number of warheads is staying constant or going down then the total energy on tap is going down too. I guess increases in stealth, detection, and accuracy make up for the decrease in power when it comes to a nuclear deterrent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_yield
It's mostly increases in targeting and accuracy -- in the era of air-dropped bombs, and early ICBMs and cruise missiles, having a reasonable probability of kill on a hardened target required an absolutely enormous warhead. With the minuscule circular error probables of modern weapons, the "city killers" of the 1950s and '60s simply aren't necessary in modern nuclear doctrine.
As you mentioned, fallout is greatly decreased by the reduction in warhead size. Additionally, as airbursts are more effective at causing damage, they have taken precedence over ground bursts, and have a substantial impact on the reduction in fallout.
The concept of a nuclear winter is primarily related to the expected firestorms in cities and forests, which would throw colossal amounts of soot into the air. With infrastructure devastated by the strategic weapons exchange, the resources to effectively fight the fires weren't expected to be in place, so it was thought they'd burn out of control. While there has been debate over how realistic it is that a nuclear winter would occur from a strategic nuclear exchange, nobody doubts that it would be catastrophic.
As you mentioned, fallout is greatly decreased by the reduction in warhead size. Additionally, as airbursts are more effective at causing damage, they have taken precedence over ground bursts, and have a substantial impact on the reduction in fallout.
The concept of a nuclear winter is primarily related to the expected firestorms in cities and forests, which would throw colossal amounts of soot into the air. With infrastructure devastated by the strategic weapons exchange, the resources to effectively fight the fires weren't expected to be in place, so it was thought they'd burn out of control. While there has been debate over how realistic it is that a nuclear winter would occur from a strategic nuclear exchange, nobody doubts that it would be catastrophic.
A bomb's blast radius increases with the cube-root of its energy, so 10 500KT bombs cover a larger ground area than one 5MT bomb; my understanding is that this was a big reason for having more smaller bombs compared to fewer larger bombs.
Despite its dearth of tactical (or strategic) uses, the B41 is a marvel of engineering assuming it does what it claims; 25MT from 5T of mass is crazy efficient.
Despite its dearth of tactical (or strategic) uses, the B41 is a marvel of engineering assuming it does what it claims; 25MT from 5T of mass is crazy efficient.
When precision weapons exist that can pick which window in your house to put a weapon through from the other side of the planet… the enormous nukes just aren’t really all that necessary any more. Smaller weapons have less fallout so your opponent will think you more likely to use them.
"One weapon that nuclear planners want to make from recycled parts and designs is the W93 — billed as the first new warhead for the nation’s nuclear arsenal since the Cold War."
...
“It’s important to keep these parts around,” said Franklin C. Miller, a nuclear expert who held federal posts for three decades before leaving government service in 2005. “If we had the manufacturing complex we once did, we wouldn’t have to rely on the old parts.” He added that other nuclear powers can and do make new atomic parts.
---------------
If you read "The Bomb", by Fred Kaplan, there is a telling scene in which Trump was briefed by the Pentagon on the state of the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal. Trump was shown a chart that showed the dramatic drop in the total number of nuclear warheads in the arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia. The U.S. has peaked at over 32,000 in 1969, but was down to about 2,500 in the active arsenal. This was presented as a good thing. The U.S.'s warhead count had dropped dramatically because they had phased out tactical warheads intended for battlefield use. Such warheads were hazardous to maintain and the military had eagerly retired them once they were obviated by more modern conventional weapons that could do the same job with less collateral damage. The nuclear warheads that the U.S. still had were tailored to meet modern requirements and were far better suited to that task than 1969's arsenal would have been.
Trump didn't understand that being able to do the same job with fewer nuclear warheads was good, and told the group that he wanted more warheads. He wanted the 32,000 the U.S. had once had and was not satisfied by arguments to the contrary. This prompted secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to comment that Trump was a "fucking moron" shortly after he left the meeting. Trump would become obsessed with this number and repeatedly ask for more nuclear warheads to be made on several later occasions.
The B83 had the largest yield of any nuclear weapon in the U.S.'s arsenal, but it's an obsolete weapon. If the U.S. gets into a hot nuclear war, they're unlikely to rely on bomber planes with gravity bombs such as the B83, like they would have in the 60's. Such a war would likely be over before they even got to their targets. If the U.S. is retiring the B83 now, it's because they can destroy the same targets in far less time with other weapon systems.
Dismantling weapons such as the B83 does reduce the risk of accidents, theft, and loss, even if the components go onto shelves for potential reuse in new weapons. However, one should not make the mistake of thinking that the U.S. is, in any way, losing capabilities here. Let's just hope those capabilities are never actually tested.
...
“It’s important to keep these parts around,” said Franklin C. Miller, a nuclear expert who held federal posts for three decades before leaving government service in 2005. “If we had the manufacturing complex we once did, we wouldn’t have to rely on the old parts.” He added that other nuclear powers can and do make new atomic parts.
---------------
If you read "The Bomb", by Fred Kaplan, there is a telling scene in which Trump was briefed by the Pentagon on the state of the U.S.'s nuclear arsenal. Trump was shown a chart that showed the dramatic drop in the total number of nuclear warheads in the arsenals of both the U.S. and Russia. The U.S. has peaked at over 32,000 in 1969, but was down to about 2,500 in the active arsenal. This was presented as a good thing. The U.S.'s warhead count had dropped dramatically because they had phased out tactical warheads intended for battlefield use. Such warheads were hazardous to maintain and the military had eagerly retired them once they were obviated by more modern conventional weapons that could do the same job with less collateral damage. The nuclear warheads that the U.S. still had were tailored to meet modern requirements and were far better suited to that task than 1969's arsenal would have been.
Trump didn't understand that being able to do the same job with fewer nuclear warheads was good, and told the group that he wanted more warheads. He wanted the 32,000 the U.S. had once had and was not satisfied by arguments to the contrary. This prompted secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, to comment that Trump was a "fucking moron" shortly after he left the meeting. Trump would become obsessed with this number and repeatedly ask for more nuclear warheads to be made on several later occasions.
The B83 had the largest yield of any nuclear weapon in the U.S.'s arsenal, but it's an obsolete weapon. If the U.S. gets into a hot nuclear war, they're unlikely to rely on bomber planes with gravity bombs such as the B83, like they would have in the 60's. Such a war would likely be over before they even got to their targets. If the U.S. is retiring the B83 now, it's because they can destroy the same targets in far less time with other weapon systems.
Dismantling weapons such as the B83 does reduce the risk of accidents, theft, and loss, even if the components go onto shelves for potential reuse in new weapons. However, one should not make the mistake of thinking that the U.S. is, in any way, losing capabilities here. Let's just hope those capabilities are never actually tested.
> However, one should not make the mistake of thinking that the U.S. is, in any way, losing capabilities here
What is this theoritical nonsense of dreams of hot nuclear wars and proceed to chest thump about having better weapons? No nuclear device has landed on US in war time. What do you base those assumptions on?
Do you think a country would face the US head on like trench warfare in the 1700s?
You think a belligerent nation would start a war with tge biggest military in the world and roll up with the trebuchets filled with nuclear bombs and start slinging at Washington?
Holy sh*t.
What is this theoritical nonsense of dreams of hot nuclear wars and proceed to chest thump about having better weapons? No nuclear device has landed on US in war time. What do you base those assumptions on?
Do you think a country would face the US head on like trench warfare in the 1700s?
You think a belligerent nation would start a war with tge biggest military in the world and roll up with the trebuchets filled with nuclear bombs and start slinging at Washington?
Holy sh*t.
[deleted]
Contrary to a lot of people I know, I think nuclear weapons are largely a good thing and the reason we‘ve had peace in Europe for 80 years. I will stand by my claim that Ukraine wouldn‘t be in their situation if they had not willingly disarmed themselves.
Of course I wish that we wouldn‘t need nuclear warheads capable of total annihilation to keep peace, but I‘m afraid that‘s just unrealistic.
Of course I wish that we wouldn‘t need nuclear warheads capable of total annihilation to keep peace, but I‘m afraid that‘s just unrealistic.
The idea that Ukraine could have defended themselves with nukes comes from not understanding what was going on when the USSR fell apart. The nukes were placed in Ukraine by Russia since Ukraine was a border region of the USSR. Ukraine did not have control of the nukes. Russia probably would have attacked them early on and destroyed the nukes or taken over the country before they could ever weaponize them and find the billions of dollars needed to maintain a nuclear fleet while they were suffering hyperinflation.
https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2022/02/06/could-ukraine-...
https://www.icanw.org/did_ukraine_give_up_nuclear_weapons
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2015.1...
https://nucleardiner.wordpress.com/2022/02/06/could-ukraine-...
https://www.icanw.org/did_ukraine_give_up_nuclear_weapons
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2015.1...
This is important to say - but I guess the question still stands, if they had somehow secretly developed nukes in say 2008, would they have been left alone? (and should we let everyone have them for world peace? I don't think I like those chances)
They have several nuclear reactors.
How difficult would it be to divert fuel and processed daughter nuclei to create a few weapons?
How difficult would it be to divert fuel and processed daughter nuclei to create a few weapons?
It is a large scale industrial affair and you don’t just do it without being noticed, likewise weapons are very high precision instruments, moreso when less refined (trying to do things small scale and not being noticed).
The answer comes in the form of another question: how many billions would it cost?
And ultimately building a nuclear weapon would alienate both sides unless it was being done explicitly with help.
The answer comes in the form of another question: how many billions would it cost?
And ultimately building a nuclear weapon would alienate both sides unless it was being done explicitly with help.
Pretty difficult but not impossible.
Spent nuclear fuel rods are among the most dangerous and difficult to handle materials available, and ones that have been sitting in a power reactor for years are far more radioactive than ones that spend a day or two in a bomb production reactor. So reprocessing the fuel rods would be a considerable challenge and would require not insubstantial industrial facilities, which would likely be blindingly obvious to superpower intelligence agencies.
Then you'd have to fabricate the plutonium into a weapon. Weapons made from reactor-grade plutonium would be a real pain to handle and store because they would be exceedingly radioactive and would require a lot of shielding. But my understanding is that a nation-state with Ukraine's resources would probably be able to manage it if sufficiently determined. But, again, the idea that you'd be able to do it in secret is highly unlikely.
And then you'd have to deliver it. The resulting weapon would probably be extremely large, unlike the more sophisticated weapons that established nation-states have, and implausible to mount on a missile. So delivery would probably have to be with an aircraft, and then you've got the question of how likely it would be to get shot down before it reached its target.
And finally, you have to consider whether a few small nuclear weapons with not-great delivery systems would be a useful deterrent. It's not hard to imagine Russia's response if a few small nuclear weapons landed on its territory - and whatever else you might say about their military, they have a lot of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Ukraine would be a radioactive crater by the time Putin was finished with it.
Spent nuclear fuel rods are among the most dangerous and difficult to handle materials available, and ones that have been sitting in a power reactor for years are far more radioactive than ones that spend a day or two in a bomb production reactor. So reprocessing the fuel rods would be a considerable challenge and would require not insubstantial industrial facilities, which would likely be blindingly obvious to superpower intelligence agencies.
Then you'd have to fabricate the plutonium into a weapon. Weapons made from reactor-grade plutonium would be a real pain to handle and store because they would be exceedingly radioactive and would require a lot of shielding. But my understanding is that a nation-state with Ukraine's resources would probably be able to manage it if sufficiently determined. But, again, the idea that you'd be able to do it in secret is highly unlikely.
And then you'd have to deliver it. The resulting weapon would probably be extremely large, unlike the more sophisticated weapons that established nation-states have, and implausible to mount on a missile. So delivery would probably have to be with an aircraft, and then you've got the question of how likely it would be to get shot down before it reached its target.
And finally, you have to consider whether a few small nuclear weapons with not-great delivery systems would be a useful deterrent. It's not hard to imagine Russia's response if a few small nuclear weapons landed on its territory - and whatever else you might say about their military, they have a lot of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Ukraine would be a radioactive crater by the time Putin was finished with it.
That's assuming Russia's nukes are maintained well enough to actually work, but judging by the state of their army and navy, where all the tech is falling apart, Russia's nuclear arsenal, as big as it is on paper, might be all duds.
>"Russia's nuclear arsenal, as big as it is on paper, might be all duds."
And what's your proposal? Start nuclear war hoping that your guess is correct?
And what's your proposal? Start nuclear war hoping that your guess is correct?
They could make a dirty bomb, but it would contaminate their own land for hundreds or thousands of years. So not worth it.
> Contrary to a lot of people I know, I think nuclear weapons are largely a good thing and the reason we‘ve had peace in Europe for 80 years.
I think the verdict is still out on this. Should we destroy human civilization with nuclear weapons at some point in the future, none of that peace will have been worth it. We've had so many close calls (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls) that we're very lucky that this hasn't happened yet.
I think the verdict is still out on this. Should we destroy human civilization with nuclear weapons at some point in the future, none of that peace will have been worth it. We've had so many close calls (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_close_calls) that we're very lucky that this hasn't happened yet.
If the book Command and Control is to be believed, that list looks pretty incomplete_by a pretty significant degree. One of the staggering stats from the book: In 1957, one hydrogen or atomic bomb was jettisoned in every 1 out of 320 flights. And there were a lot of flights going on at that time, as the core strategies was keeping bombing power in the air.
It really does seem like just plain dumb luck that we made it through those turbulent wild west days when the bomb was new without killing ourselves.
Just as a side note, reading all the unexpected failure modes that popped up during the weapons program was remarkably humbling. Interactions with reality will poke all the holes in can in your world view. One of my favorite examples from the book: One of the early designs of the bomb required a human to specifically remove a key card from the bomb in order to arm it. This was deemed pretty safe. Until, an aircraft entered problems during a training mission and entered a spin. The centrifugal force of that spin was enough to suck the key out, arming the bomb on the way down as the plane crashed into the earth.
There is, counter intuitively, a lot of comfort to be had in modern missiles from a "will we accidentally blow ourselves up?" perspective.
It really does seem like just plain dumb luck that we made it through those turbulent wild west days when the bomb was new without killing ourselves.
Just as a side note, reading all the unexpected failure modes that popped up during the weapons program was remarkably humbling. Interactions with reality will poke all the holes in can in your world view. One of my favorite examples from the book: One of the early designs of the bomb required a human to specifically remove a key card from the bomb in order to arm it. This was deemed pretty safe. Until, an aircraft entered problems during a training mission and entered a spin. The centrifugal force of that spin was enough to suck the key out, arming the bomb on the way down as the plane crashed into the earth.
There is, counter intuitively, a lot of comfort to be had in modern missiles from a "will we accidentally blow ourselves up?" perspective.
I wouldn’t even say the verdict is out. Considering we’ve already had some relatively close calls, I think we can say with statistical certainty that we will destroy civilization on a long enough time scale if we keep the nukes around.
If the odds of nuclear war are 1% in a century, we won’t last much more than 10,000 years, and might last a lot fewer.
If the odds of nuclear war are 1% in a century, we won’t last much more than 10,000 years, and might last a lot fewer.
A presidential term is 4 years. Assuming it holds over 10000 years, that would mean roughly 2500 presidents. In a group of 2500 people, what are the odds of one of them being batshit crazy? That would be a lower bound to overall probability of nuclear annihilation.
It's even worse, as it's not only presidents/leaders that can trigger a war.
If you look at the close calls Wikipedia page linked upthread, one of the worst was a Soviet sub that lost radio contact during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2 out of 3 (!) of the officers on the sub approved a nuclear strike on the US fleet. The fate of human civilization relied on the choice of a single mid-level naval officer.
Considering the other two officers approved the strike, the final officer being the kind of person who would also approve the strike was probably in the 50/50 realm at best. So basically we won a coinflip on that day for the fate of humanity, and that's far from the only close call we've had.
If you look at the close calls Wikipedia page linked upthread, one of the worst was a Soviet sub that lost radio contact during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 2 out of 3 (!) of the officers on the sub approved a nuclear strike on the US fleet. The fate of human civilization relied on the choice of a single mid-level naval officer.
Considering the other two officers approved the strike, the final officer being the kind of person who would also approve the strike was probably in the 50/50 realm at best. So basically we won a coinflip on that day for the fate of humanity, and that's far from the only close call we've had.
Whilst weapons of mass destruction have been a deterrant, I would argue that weapons of targeted destruction are just as useful, if not more so, like drones, missiles, anti-missile defense etc. They are also less bad for humanity if they are used. If the US dismantled substantial stockpiles of nuclear warheads it would be unlikely to impact their global standing.
Certain politically important contractors' cash flow would be threatened.
It sort of worked a bit, although with the risk of total annihilation if something goes wrong.
But now we see Russia invading Ukraine and using the threat of nuclear weapons to reduce NATO countermeasures. The nuclear weapons have made its conventional war possible.
But now we see Russia invading Ukraine and using the threat of nuclear weapons to reduce NATO countermeasures. The nuclear weapons have made its conventional war possible.
Mutually assured destruction only works if you assume all actors are rational. There is an argument that if a irrational actor obtains a nuclear weapon then their use would occur.
Kicking off MAD could also be rational for an actor that faces certain defeat and death/imprisonment.
You remember wrong, it was Not Ukraine that disarmed.
It was Russia removing their control of Nukes under their control in Ukraine.
Somewhat a big difference.
It was Russia removing their control of Nukes under their control in Ukraine.
Somewhat a big difference.
This is not at all what happened, you are making things up.
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine_and_weapons_of_mass_destr...
I reluctantly agree, and I'd cite the cases of North Korea and Pakistan.
The reason Europe has had peace for 80 years is that they are the Vassal States of America.
The reason Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine have had war in the last twenty years is because Russia wants them to be vassal states
Sad but true. Toothless protectorates.
Its disappointing considering Europe's history and seasoned institutions.
I would not be surprised if Ursula has to phone Washington everytime she needs to go to the toilet.
Its disappointing considering Europe's history and seasoned institutions.
I would not be surprised if Ursula has to phone Washington everytime she needs to go to the toilet.
This seems to make claims of a shortage of plutonium for deep-space RTG power systems into lies. It seems like there is plenty of Pu for all the deep space missions we could otherwise afford.
The plutonium for deep space missions powered by RTG systems is plutonium 238. The plutonium from surplus weapons is plutonium 239. They are made in different ways and they are not interchangeable.
I am corrected.
Why is this surprising to anyone?
Did someone think the plutonium was going to disappear?
This is why ALL nuclear power is a disaster. Even after this material is used to boil water for a few years, it's still highly radioactive for millennia.
Did someone think the plutonium was going to disappear?
This is why ALL nuclear power is a disaster. Even after this material is used to boil water for a few years, it's still highly radioactive for millennia.
Footprint of spent nuclear fuel is laughably small when compared to other industrial processes and it can be reduced even further by using fast-neutron "burner" reactors. Why do you complain about nuclear and not about "immortal" heavy metals, which have several orders of magnitude bigger impact on ecology and human health?
Meanwhile microplastics have gotten into just about every drop of water on the planet and will take hundreds of years to disintegrate.
The Banqiao Dam hydropower failure killed 145,000 people. No nuclear accident has caused this level of damage.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Coal is far, far worse than this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Coal is far, far worse than this.
Not to mention the disruption on the river ecosystem.
The size of our generation capacity is as important as its emissions.
The size of our generation capacity is as important as its emissions.
> highly radioactive for millennia
Something can be highly radioactive for a short time, moderately radioactive for a long time, or slightly radioactive for a very long time.
If something is “radioactive for millenia” then it’s probably so mild that you could store in your underpants without I’ll effects.
Something can be highly radioactive for a short time, moderately radioactive for a long time, or slightly radioactive for a very long time.
If something is “radioactive for millenia” then it’s probably so mild that you could store in your underpants without I’ll effects.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/cdcb8173-3843-4e4a-9d...
Have a little snack consisting of 1 gram of americium and 7 grams of neptunium 237, or store an equivalently active gamma emitter in your underpants.
Have a little snack consisting of 1 gram of americium and 7 grams of neptunium 237, or store an equivalently active gamma emitter in your underpants.
To be fair, something can be highly radioactive for a short time, moderately radioactive for a long time, AND slightly radioactive for a very long time, assuming there are at least three different radioisotopes involved.
Also, it's a exponential decay curve, so something that's slightly radioactive a very long time from now is probably still fairly dangerous right now.
Also, it's a exponential decay curve, so something that's slightly radioactive a very long time from now is probably still fairly dangerous right now.
[deleted]
> it's still highly radioactive for millennia
So it space and were actively trying to send people up there to live and colonize.
So it space and were actively trying to send people up there to live and colonize.
Literally no one is actively trying to colonize anywhere off Earth. Some people lie about it when not too busy lying about other things.
That’s why we should be using reprocessed MOX fuel not once through and bury.
Exactly. The plutonium in nuclear waste is not waste, it's a fuel at least as valuable as ²³⁵U. Reprocessing not only reuses the Pu, with fast reactors it can be used to convert almost all ²³⁸U to ²³⁹Pu which is a valuable fuel. This allows us to get 60x more energy out of natural uranium -- we can stop enriching uranium and fuel our civilization for hundreds of years based on the "waste" that is already above.
The waste that remains after reprocessing in a fast cycle are fission products that will decay so much in 1000 years that the waste is less radioactive than the original uranium ore.
The waste that remains after reprocessing in a fast cycle are fission products that will decay so much in 1000 years that the waste is less radioactive than the original uranium ore.
What's the concentration of Pu in the output of a modern high burnup reactor? What is the ratio of that to the concentration of fissile products needed for fuel?
Cs137 and Sr90 lasting 'mere' centuries isn't helping your case any. Especially when existing MOX programs spill more than Fukushima and TMI combined as standard operating procedure.
Cs137 and Sr90 lasting 'mere' centuries isn't helping your case any. Especially when existing MOX programs spill more than Fukushima and TMI combined as standard operating procedure.
When working on a timescale of 10E2 or 10E3 years, it seems practical to me to bury it in a sealed drum in a concrete cube inside a stable mountain.
With larger timescales, my understanding is that the mountain itself might disrupt the cube + drums, opening Pandora’s box.
Perhaps an actual geologist can weigh in and correct me.
With larger timescales, my understanding is that the mountain itself might disrupt the cube + drums, opening Pandora’s box.
Perhaps an actual geologist can weigh in and correct me.
People have built structures on Earth that have lasted 1000 years so that is in our experience. It seems likely that people will still be able to read English in the next 1000 years. It is in our realm of experience.
100,000 not so much. All kinds of things can go wrong. It is expected for instance that as Yucca Mountain cools down water will infiltrate. Uranium is water soluble so some will migrate in the direction of Death Valley. Uranium is toxic the same way lead and mercury are and that is more dangerous than the radiotoxicity of uranium.
A "once through" repository will contain valuable plutonium and uranium. People might want to drill into it 10,000 years from now because they want to use it as a power source or to make nuclear explosives. For that matter we could change our minds and decide we want to recycle the waste in Yucca Mountain after all so we have to be able to retrieve the waste in the first 100 years.
A waste repository used for fission products can use highly secure but difficult to reverse approaches such as encapsulation in a salt dome or burial in areas at sea where sedimentation is taking place where waste would get deeper and deeper year after year and be blocked from migration by the tendency of ions to get trapped in clay.
100,000 not so much. All kinds of things can go wrong. It is expected for instance that as Yucca Mountain cools down water will infiltrate. Uranium is water soluble so some will migrate in the direction of Death Valley. Uranium is toxic the same way lead and mercury are and that is more dangerous than the radiotoxicity of uranium.
A "once through" repository will contain valuable plutonium and uranium. People might want to drill into it 10,000 years from now because they want to use it as a power source or to make nuclear explosives. For that matter we could change our minds and decide we want to recycle the waste in Yucca Mountain after all so we have to be able to retrieve the waste in the first 100 years.
A waste repository used for fission products can use highly secure but difficult to reverse approaches such as encapsulation in a salt dome or burial in areas at sea where sedimentation is taking place where waste would get deeper and deeper year after year and be blocked from migration by the tendency of ions to get trapped in clay.
I like the sedimentation plan. After sedimentation it’ll get pushed down below the crust right?
That was originally the plan for surplus weapons plutonium. In 2007 the United States started building a MOX facility at Savannah River for turning the old weapons plutonium into power reactor fuel. Its cost and time to completion ballooned far beyond original estimates and it was ultimately canceled.
"Cost estimate for MOX facility at Savannah River Site swells to $47.5 billion"
https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/2015/04/22/cost-...
"US MOX facility contract terminated"
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-MOX-facility-cont...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_River_Site#MOX_Fuel_F...
"Cost estimate for MOX facility at Savannah River Site swells to $47.5 billion"
https://www.augustachronicle.com/story/news/2015/04/22/cost-...
"US MOX facility contract terminated"
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/US-MOX-facility-cont...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_River_Site#MOX_Fuel_F...
Do we have a better alternative than nuclear power right now?
Yes. Renewables with no storage can cover 30-50% of world energy (not just electricity). Nuclear tops out at around 5% if we go all in now at around the same total cost. Storage technologies exist for the rest at about the cost of nuclear (but with actual ability to scale), but are not necessary en masse yet and are likely to drop in price by the time they are.
What is better? Hydrogen and Hydroelectric might be cheaper in the short term, nuke plants are very expensive. Most countries can't get nuke plants either even if they can afford them, you can't sell it to them like you can with hydrogen.
Going to rehash debates that we've been having for many years, but the short answer is yes.
Existing renewable tech + storage will do the job just fine in most of the world, and at lower cost than nuclear.
Existing renewable tech + storage will do the job just fine in most of the world, and at lower cost than nuclear.
Why not just donate the redundant bombs to Ukraine?