0
This takes around 6.000.000 years but it could take longer depending on the amount of nuclear fuel spilt.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How long is a spent nuclear fuel rod a danger?
Thousands of years at least
How did mined uranium become fuel for nuclear power plants?
Uranium minerals support a long way of transformations to become sintered pellets of uranium dioxide, the most common nuclear fuel.
Would reusing nuclear fuel be safer because of the lack of need for storage?
Recycling nuclear fuel does not eliminate the need for long term storage of spent fuel. Uranium fuel is routinely refined and recycled, but the process is messy, expensive and itself creates nuclear waste. Some long lived isotopes of fission will always need disposal somewhere.
What is the bad in nuclear energy?
Mostly the long lived radioactivity left in the spent fuel, but also any leakage from a damaged plant as at Fukushima.
What are two major worries about nuclear energy?
1. What to do for long term storage of the spent fuel 2. Whether rogue states or even criminal gangs might develop nuclear weapons.
Why is nuclear energy controversial in the US?
It is in just about every country. Mainly because people worry about safety, and what to do about the long life waste from spent fuel.
What is the byproduct of nuclear energy?
We generally consider nuclear fission as the "splitting" of atoms. In this process, a large atomic nucleus splits into two smaller nuclei. The smaller nuclei are called fission fragments, and they are radioactive. Making nuclear energy, which we do in nuclear reactors, results in the production of large quantities of highly radioactive fission products. These byproducts require that we cool the spent fuel for long periods, and also that we store it for centuries so that the radioactive materials have a chance to decay and become less hazardous.
How tall are the nuclear fuel rods in japan?
The nuclear fuel rods in the BWR design in Japan are about 12 feet long.
Does Nuclear fission as used in nuclear power plants produces radioactive waste with long half lives?
yes, Nuclear fission as used in nuclear power plants produces radioactive waste with long half lives. However, this creates no problems. This wastes are either confined in the spent nuclear fuel (that is stored either in wet storage or in dry storage facilities) or stored as vitrified nuclear waste.
Why don't we reuse spent nuclear fuel?
The reuse of spent fuel involves opening up the (spent) fuel elements and then processing the "insides" to recover unused fuel. The primary reason we don't do this is that it is extremely expensive to set up and run a facility that does this. It is generally cheaper to mine uranium out of the ground, process it to win the metal, and then enrich it to recover high percentage U-235 for use in making nuclear fuel. We might make a comparison to "simple" mining, refining and enrichment by looking at reprocessing. Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel involves exposure to highly radioactive materials. These pose a number of risks, and this means increased costs. The chemistry of reprocessing translates into costs for materials (like nitric acid to dissolve spent fuel in "step one" of the process). The end of the process leaves a stream of highly radioactive materials that need secure and long-term storage, and this does not come cheap. Though usable fuel has been recovered and reused via reprocessing, it's expensive. Reprocessing fuel is generally not as cheap as a "once through" fuel cycle where spent fuel is just pulled from the reactor after use, left sealed in the fuel elements, and then placed in long-term storage. Unless the price of uranium goes sky high, which, though possible, is unlikely.
What are the negatives of nuclear power?
A1. Mainly I would say that no permanent long term repository has been established for the radioactive fission products in the spent fuel. For the moment the spent fuel is being stored in water cooling ponds, but this will have to be solved at some time to provide a long term solution. A2. Some of the negatives of nuclear energy are the high costs to build and license the building, the large initial investment for long term payback, the waste products have to be stored in remote facilities, and the high cost of personnel.
Can nuclear waste from power plants be used for any other purpose other than weapons?
If you are referring to the spent fuel assemblies from nuclear power power plants then you have it turned around. Spent fuel assemblies have significant amounts of plutonium which are quite suitable for reprocessing into new fuel. The French have practiced this with their nuclear program for 30 years or so with such success that they reprocess fuel for other countries. The highly radioactive fission products are encased in glass and buried in deep mines. The US had originally intended this for their fuel cycle but the program was cancelled in the 1970's in favor of long term storage (as in Yucca Mountain). As it turns out in the nuclear world, there are several nuclides of Plutonium just as there are several nuclides of Uranium and, as in the case of Uranium, most Plutonium nuclides aren't suitable for bombs. Spent fuel has a mixture of the Plutonium nuclides that are as hard to enrich as Uranium is and are thus an unsuitable source for weapons grade Plutonium.
