Callaway, other nuclear plants cope with spent fuel dilemma

Source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Critics paint a grim picture of what could happen if a pool packed with spent nuclear fuel loses cooling in a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Spent nuclear fuel could heat up to the point that the zirconium cladding catches fire, releasing radioactivity. The biggest threat comes from cesium 137 — the radioactive isotope that during the Soviet Union's 1986 Chernobyl disaster rendered an area half the size of New Jersey uninhabitable. That disaster involved the release of 2 million to 3 million curies of cesium; the spent fuel pools at some U.S. reactors contain several times more than that.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/article_8db464a1-5757-5ca7-89e8-a319c8c0878c.html

As an engineer and machinist, I was looking for photos of Zirconium containment assemblies. What I found was this site. I have not spent time researching the comparison of nuclear to photovoltaic in terms of complexity per watt. But I don't think that's an issue. I never knew spent fuel rods were kept on site until I read this. And I just have a hunch that given my experience with nuclear power plants, they are far more complex than photovoltaics. One is a complex group of multiple types of construction, and the other is a simple integrated circuit kind of product.






http://www.bayswateruranium.com/uissues.html


"For the first 40 – 50 years, spent reactor fuel is stored at the reactor site, within the containment building, to allow heat and radioactivity to decay to levels which make handling and storage easier. Currently, the majority of the world’s nuclear waste is still at reactor sites. The plan for long term storage is ‘multiple-barrier’ geological disposal. First, the waste will be immobilized in an insoluble matrix, and then sealed inside a corrosion-resistant container. The containers will then be buried deep underground in a stable rock structure. Several countries including Finland, Sweden, and the U.S. already have planned sites for this deep geological storage. This will ensure that no significant environmental release occurs over the tens of thousands of years it takes for decay to occur."

here is a study of spent fuel rod recycling

http://www.oecd-nea.org/science/docs/pubs/nea4451-plutonium.pdf

how ever it doesn't discuss "other" methods of recycling I am not at liberty to discuss

I've looked into pv versus nuclear. But just briefly.

Here's what I see-

40MW takes up 540 acres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldpolenz_Solar_Park

Diablo Canyon produces a GW.

It is located on close to 1000 acres.

So as for area taken up, they are not significantly different.


Looking at the two facilities, it definitely appears that Diablo Canyon takes up a world of resources more than the photovoltaic farm. I've been inside Diablo Canyon. I have seen it. It is not trivial, like photovoltaics.

There has to be a better way.