(April 9, 2011 at 8:03 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:I worked at TMI for 3 years in various capacities during the clean-up phase.

Do you glow in the dark?

Only after sex.

Today Japan upgraded the accident rating to a 7. The reason is they combined the curie releases of units 1-3, which previously has been treated as separate accidents, each rating a 5. Unit 4 has not been added to the lot. It still remains a 3.

What's the cost of making a new nuclear power plant compared to the cost of "unmaking" one(destroy it or shutting it down permanently)?

(April 12, 2011 at 7:13 pm)Ashendant Wrote: What's the cost of making a new nuclear power plant compared to the cost of "unmaking" one(destroy it or shutting it down permanently)?

I've heard one option is to bury it in concrete. How viable is that as a solution?

(April 12, 2011 at 7:13 pm)Ashendant Wrote: What's the cost of making a new nuclear power plant compared to the cost of "unmaking" one(destroy it or shutting it down permanently)?

It cost approximately $1 billion to deal with the physical cost of decommissioning the nuclear pile and completely removing a 1 GW nuclear power plant. That does not consider the cost of replacing the lost generating capacity if the nuclear plant decommissioned prior to the end of its useful life. No new nuclear power generation reactor has been installed in the US for over 20 years, so the following is an estimate. Building a new 1 GW nuclear generating unit on a completely new site cost approximately $3 billion. Expanding existing nuclear power plants with new reactors cost less.

---

(April 12, 2011 at 7:45 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:

(April 12, 2011 at 7:13 pm)Ashendant Wrote: What's the cost of making a new nuclear power plant compared to the cost of "unmaking" one(destroy it or shutting it down permanently)?

I've heard one option is to bury it in concrete. How viable is that as a solution?

You can't bury an entire nuclear power plant in concrete. But significantly radioactive parts like components of the reactor pressure vessel are removed from the site and buried in concrete. A nuclear power plant that never had any very severe accidents can be totally dismantalled and turned into a park.

There is as yet no way to dispose of the much more dangerous once through spent fuel rods. A intelligent solution would be to reprocess it for reuse as fuel in other reactors until the spent fuel losses much of its potency. But anti-nuclear hysteria prevents this economical and much safer means of disposing nuclear waste.

(April 12, 2011 at 7:45 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote: I've heard one option is to bury it in concrete. How viable is that as a solution?

Not viable. Plutonium already has gotten into the groundwater, and the current set up is such that any further leaks will merely sink down... into the groundwater layer.

Nope, I'm sorry but it looks like simply burying the damn thing won't work. We're looking at another 80 years of damage control and environmental clean up though.

There are a number of options. The cheapest one is always "decomission in place." I believe they are using the 2 uneffected plants to store highly radioactive water and don't plan to use them ever again. The problem of nuclear watse disposal as of right now is a political problem and not a scientific one.