After the news on Monday the the solution for handling nuclear waste is to dig a big hole, its being reported that a group of astro-physicists have discovered they can effectively reduce the half-life of isotype to a few decades by freezing them.
According to Professor Claus Rolfs, leader of the group at Ruhr University in Bochum, Germany, said: "The method we are proposing means that nuclear waste could probably be dealt with entirely within the lifetimes of the people that produce it. We would not have to put it underground and let our great-great-grandchildren pay the price for our high standard of living."
However, there are apparently sceptics in the scientific community on this research. Noen have dismissed outright, but there are concerns about the methods and results that have been produced. I'm no physicist so I couldn't possibly pass judgement, I do think one reads this blog occassionally though so maybe he will. If the research is correct it could have far-reaching consequences on the cost implications of nuclear waste disposal.
Physics World
5 comments:
Sounds extremely unlikely to me. Radioactive decay happens at the atomic nuclear level, but temperature happens at the molecular level. It's hard to see how one could affect the other.
But then again, I only did A-level physics. Let's hope I'm wrong - wouldn't be the first time!
It sounds unlikely to me too. I went to the Government's public consultation on this and was not impressed, one of the options even included firing the waste into space, though that was discounted at an earlier stage.
These decisions need to be left to the experts and if this method was seriously suitable, we would have heard more about it. I do have all the paperwork from the consultation and when I have a moment, I will look up whether this method was ever considered as an option.
However, the whole issue about storing nuclear waste has been a farce. I spoke to one government adviser, a leading scientist in this field, who resigned in disgust because the politically correct views of focus groups were considered more important than hi. Magnus Linklater expressed his disgust about it in The Times.
I now have my 2nd consultation document from CORWM (Committee on Radiactive Waste Management) from me. I participated in their public forum having read Magnus Linklater's article in The Times and being driven by curiosity and concern. I was not impressed, how could I, as someone totally ignorant about the technicalities and realities, be expected to give an educated opinion on the future of nuclear waste disposal?
Out of 16 original options, freezing was never considered. Disposal in ice sheets was mentioned, but I don't think that is the same, and it was excluded very hastily, along with disposal at see, in space and near-surface disposal.
I would like to know how the French manage their nuclear waste disposal; 80% of their electricity comes from nuclear power stations.
Hi Ellee, in fairness I think this type of freezing wouldn't have been mentioned because it's still undergoing peer review by the scientific community. If the experiments do turn out ot repeatable and it is indeed possible to reduce the halflife of isotopes then the whole question of nuclear disposal will have to go under review I think.
Here's a theory:
Ping pong ball fired on a tray full of pegs. If there aren't too many pegs, the ball ricochets of some and then flies off the tray. If there are loads of pegs, the ball richochets back and forth but has less chance of leaving the tray before it runs out of energy.
Apply the same thing to nuclear waste. Freeze it and the molecular density increases, (I won't go into the detail of the minimal bit of molecular physics I understand there, but sufficed to say that it's at bit like Boyles Law) like the pegs on the tray. I mean, that's why they use carbon rods in reactors to slow things down a bit.
Now the whole process might not actually reduce the half-life in the slightest, but all we're actually worried about is containment. I don't give a damn what happens within a nuclear reactor as long as I don't have to drink the water afterwards.
Post a Comment