What do with a spent fuel rod, early in the mornin'

lo_res_man · Wed 26/04/2006 19:41:33

On the 20th anniversary of the cherynoble disaster, the need for a safe way to dispose of spent fuel rods is greater then ever. let us have a minute of silence for those affected ( and still affected) by this tragedy.
( one minute later... )
Thank you. well I have an idea, why dispose of them when you can use them to generate power? They still produce heat, right? And while we might not have a self sustaining nuclear reaction, we still got a lot of heat being produced, and that is all a steam turbine needs, heat. here is my idea to help the world. Any engineers in the crowd to tell me why this wouldn’t work?

Krysis · Wed 26/04/2006 19:54:58

Good idea, but the perspectibe is tottaly wrong.

MarVelo · Wed 26/04/2006 22:24:03

It will never work. You forgot that the residue from the coils must be collected by a blue cup container.

lo_res_man · Wed 26/04/2006 22:58:33

Ha, ha, very funny. I am actually semi-serious about this.

MarVelo · Wed 26/04/2006 23:52:46

Wouldn't the core rods still be radioactive? I am no nuclear physicist or Nuke Plant Operator, but I would asume that there is something that prevents this from working.

EDIT: Not to take the wind out of your sails. It just seems simple enough so I would figure that it would already be being done. I dont need a lecture of how nothing new would ever happen if people didn't voice their opinion. I know that...It just seems all to easy.

fovmester · Thu 27/04/2006 07:15:24

What you have done here is basically the design for an inefficient nuclear reactor. Normal reactors work on this principle but the heat is strong enough to vaporize the water into steam. In this case I think the output would be to low for it to be worthwhile.

Mr Flibble · Thu 27/04/2006 16:09:26

My suspicion is that if the solution to the nuclear waste issuse were this simple, one of those highly qualified nuclear physicists I've heard so much about would have thought of it already.

lo_res_man · Thu 27/04/2006 20:28:24

Yes it would be inefficient, and no it is not a solution, but I think it would at least HELP. I mean they go to all this trouble to keep the darn things cool AFTER they are spent, that is, unable to have a self sustaining nuclear reaction, so I thought, well heat is heat, why not USE it? Of course it would be radioactive, but so is fresh fuel. It would require more fuel rods then a normal reactor, but that is a good thing, because that makes more use of waste.

Tuomas · Thu 27/04/2006 20:34:41

Heat's good, why not use them in radiators or bake stuff with them. in fact, we could toss them into the sea, they'd do wonders to the fish!

vict0r · Thu 27/04/2006 20:57:55

Quote from: Tuomas on Thu 27/04/2006 20:34:41
they'd do wonders to the fish!

Indeed! Fish tend to develop extra feet and arms and such when exposed to radioactive materials right? More unnatural fishlimbs, more meat! And the same thing should be done with the rest of the nature also. Dump the nuclear waste in the forest and stuff, and let the animals mutate!

InCreator · Thu 27/04/2006 21:55:36

Wouldn't water and/or steam be radioactive? Where'd you store it?

lo_res_man · Thu 27/04/2006 22:16:23

well from what I understand, this two part system (carrier fluid heating water for steam) limits the exposure of the water to radioactivity but even if the water becomes radioactive, if I understand this right, has a much less half life then the elements in the fuels rods. correct me if I am wrong. As well we can just keep circulating the fluids in a closed system, I think

Krysis · Fri 28/04/2006 08:29:01

I didn't want to say this, but this is how fuel rods are used in the big shiny power plant:

So this is how it works anyway. Someone was sleeping in science class.Ã,Â :

Here is some basic info about fuel rods I "googled" for:

Nuclear fuel rods explained
A nuclear fuel rod is used as the source of nuclear energy in a reactor. Most nuclear reactors are powered by fuel rods that contain two types of uranium: uranium-238 and uranium-235.
In power reactors, the fuel rods contain around 2-3% uranium-235.

Fission
As fuel is burned in the reactor, uranium is fissioned as part of a controlled chain reaction. Fissioning involves splitting the nuclei (the centre) of uranium atoms. This releases atomic particles called neutrons which split as they collide with other atoms, creating more neutrons. Other radioactive elements called fission products and plutonium are created in this process.

Spent nuclear fuel
Fission product and plutonium, which build up in fuel rods, make the fuel less and less effective. As a result, the fuel is withdrawn from the reactor after a time and is said to be "spent fuel". Spent fuel rods are extremely hot and highly radioactive as a result of the new radioactive elements created by the fissioning process.

I think that explains why people don't use them. they get too radioactive.

Tuomas · Fri 28/04/2006 10:43:36

Quote from: InCreator on Thu 27/04/2006 21:55:36
Wouldn't water and/or steam be radioactive? Where'd you store it?

No actually the water wouldn't be radioactive since it can't, but it would be subject to radiation and thus warm up.

Krysis · Fri 28/04/2006 10:50:14

Oh, Tuomas...Ã,Â :

Radioactive water can't? Really? Sure it can and it does. Allmost everything gets radioactive.

Google is your friend, and so is Wikipedia.

Tuomas · Fri 28/04/2006 11:22:29

So is my physics book. besides Wiki claims the moon gets away from us

Sure, the H & O in water can be made to radiate as beta decoy with correct machinery, but water,radioactive in nature, nevah. Besides through beta decoy nothing would come out. I don't want to go through all those courses any more.
Anyhow, if you put radioactive waste in water, that won't make it radioactive.

Actually they drill them deep in rock here... And granite is radioactive, and it's radiation makes stone a bit warmer, but the waste doesn't do anything to it.

besides

QuoteNear Braceville, Ill., the Braidwood Generating Station, owned by the Exelon Corporation, has leaked tritium into underground water that has shown up in the well of a family nearby. The company, which has bought out one property owner and is negotiating with others, has offered to help pay for a municipal water system for houses near the plant that have private wells

QuoteTAMPA - A dike holding millions of gallons of acidic phosphate water breached Sunday during hurricane rains, releasing at least 18,000 gallons of wastewater into Hillsborough Bay.

I'd go deeper than just the links. According to Googles results the term of radioactive water refers to water that has some radioactive substance in it. So the water you tossed the rods in would be radioactive, but not after you take them up again.

Krysis · Fri 28/04/2006 11:49:13

I feel no need to agrue... It seems I may have been wrong in my previous post.

I doubt anyone arond here knows enough about uranium, fuel rods and stuff like that. I don't think a solution that simple exists. Let the smart people think of something, they know more.Ã,Â

MarVelo · Fri 28/04/2006 12:18:04

My sentiments exactly.

Tuomas · Fri 28/04/2006 13:52:56

Yeah well all I know is what I learnt in the 6 years time I studied physics and what I recall from the modern physics course, but I can't tell an ultimate truth

Scummbuddy · Fri 28/04/2006 16:49:58

We are slowly losing our moon... btw.