Timeline for How to solve the Fukushima incident?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 27, 2015 at 1:40 | comment | added | usncahill | That "chamber" you talk about, I call a "reactor". | |
| Jan 17, 2014 at 21:23 | history | protected | Qmechanic♦ | ||
| Jan 17, 2014 at 21:20 | comment | added | C. Towne Springer | Great links by @rody and i have been watching this for a long time. Other alternatives require many decades (careers) and are fueled by truckloads of burning grant money. | |
| Jan 17, 2014 at 21:14 | answer | added | Larry | timeline score: -1 | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 20:51 | comment | added | user10851 | What does the title (Fukushima, which, as Rody Oldenhuis pointed out, does not have blobs of glowing radioactive material scattered around) have to do with the body (spent fuel, which is either buried out of reach of anyone or reused as a new fuel source)? | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 12:52 | comment | added | Jim | Can't call this an answer but consider this. In order to produce enriched uranium or plutonium, we use techniques such as neutron bombardment on more or less harmless uranium. That means, if we were to somehow reverse the process, we'd end up taking radioactive material and turning it to harmless material (that's good) but we'd also have a stream of neutron radiation pouring out at us (very very bad). It would probably kill anyone nearby. So until someone comes up with a way to clean it up without reversing the process, we're stuck with waste | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 12:23 | comment | added | Michael | @RodyOldenhuis Wish I could give you ten upvotes for those links! | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 7:01 | comment | added | Rody Oldenhuis | Also, the Fukushima incident is a triumph for nuclear power, despite what you might've heard on the news. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 7:00 | comment | added | Rody Oldenhuis | Have a look at Generation IV reactors. Currently in development, but they have the potential to use current nuclear waste as their fuel, and their waste is less radioactive and far easier to process safely. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 6:02 | review | First posts | |||
| Sep 3, 2013 at 10:14 | |||||
| Sep 3, 2013 at 5:53 | comment | added | Deer Hunter | What's your question? We've been dealing with active waste for 71 years, and found no answer so far. Transmutation will be energy inefficient. | |
| Sep 3, 2013 at 5:46 | history | asked | user29159 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |