<More thoughts on Prudhoe Bay The Oil Drum DrumBeat: August 9, 2006>

337 comments on Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

AlanfromBigEasy on August 8, 2006 - 6:09pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Wait ~100 years for induced radioactivity to decline 99.9+%.

Use hydro, wind or solar generated power to melt down steel & other metal into metal that is not exposed to people (concrete rebar comes to mind).  Use air jack-hammers to break-up concrete and use for roadbeds or other "scrap concrete" use.

IMHO, "once through" fuel rods will be retrieved from storage after a century or two and refined/reprocessed for their platinum group metals (plus gold, silver, germanium, etc.).

The degree of employee health safety measures might be excellent in 2138, or they may not be.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on August 8, 2006 - 7:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The high grade steel (and copper) of old nukes would be ideal for certain parts of wind turbines, geothermal power plants and hydro power plants (all with limited human contact).

What to do with the zirconium though ? (Nuke fuel rods are often built of zirconium from memory).

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
DIYer on August 8, 2006 - 11:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
The neat thing about zirconium is that it is still just zirconium afterward. It doesn't tend to absorb neutrons, and that's why they use tubing made from it to contain the fuel elements.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on August 8, 2006 - 11:38pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Convert to zirconium oxide and use for SOFC membranes.
Comments can no longer be added to this story.

337 comments on Is Nuclear Power a Viable Option for Our Energy Needs?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version