Comments on: Power Engineering Article Looks at Recycling Option in the U.S. http://us.arevablog.com/2009/08/12/power-engineering-article-looks-at-recycling-option-in-the-us/ Next Energy Blog Wed, 02 Nov 2011 15:29:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jim http://us.arevablog.com/2009/08/12/power-engineering-article-looks-at-recycling-option-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-240 Jim Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:22:43 +0000 http://us.arevablog.com/?p=879#comment-240 Gabriel,<br> You are theoretically correct, but in the process of recycling nuclear fuel today, the statement is correct (but maybe could have been worded better). Because there are just a few major players in spent fuel radiotoxcicty, removing any of them results in a larger overall reduction in the overall value. So, you get more reduction in radiotoxicity by removing Pu than from removing equal amounts of Zr-93, even though both are recognized contributors.<br><br>I think the intent was, if you remove the 7 or so major contributors, you get huge reductions in the sum total value compared to the left-over waste volume. The phrase should probably have read more like "Radiotoxicity is reduced by a factor of 10 when these major contributors since reducing their volume greatly reduces the overall toxicity of the whole" or something like that. Gabriel,
You are theoretically correct, but in the process of recycling nuclear fuel today, the statement is correct (but maybe could have been worded better). Because there are just a few major players in spent fuel radiotoxcicty, removing any of them results in a larger overall reduction in the overall value. So, you get more reduction in radiotoxicity by removing Pu than from removing equal amounts of Zr-93, even though both are recognized contributors.

I think the intent was, if you remove the 7 or so major contributors, you get huge reductions in the sum total value compared to the left-over waste volume. The phrase should probably have read more like “Radiotoxicity is reduced by a factor of 10 when these major contributors since reducing their volume greatly reduces the overall toxicity of the whole” or something like that.

]]> By: Jim http://us.arevablog.com/2009/08/12/power-engineering-article-looks-at-recycling-option-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-162 Jim Wed, 02 Sep 2009 15:31:52 +0000 http://us.arevablog.com/?p=879#comment-162 Gabriel, You are theoretically correct, but in the process of recycling nuclear fuel today, the statement is correct (but maybe could have been worded better). Because there are just a few major players in spent fuel radiotoxcicty, removing any of them results in a larger overall reduction in the overall value. So, you get more reduction in radiotoxicity by removing Pu than from removing equal amounts of Zr-93, even though both are recognized contributors. I think the intent was, if you remove the 7 or so major contributors, you get huge reductions in the sum total value compared to the left-over waste volume. The phrase should probably have read more like "Radiotoxicity is reduced by a factor of 10 when these major contributors since reducing their volume greatly reduces the overall toxicity of the whole" or something like that. Gabriel,
You are theoretically correct, but in the process of recycling nuclear fuel today, the statement is correct (but maybe could have been worded better). Because there are just a few major players in spent fuel radiotoxcicty, removing any of them results in a larger overall reduction in the overall value. So, you get more reduction in radiotoxicity by removing Pu than from removing equal amounts of Zr-93, even though both are recognized contributors.

I think the intent was, if you remove the 7 or so major contributors, you get huge reductions in the sum total value compared to the left-over waste volume. The phrase should probably have read more like “Radiotoxicity is reduced by a factor of 10 when these major contributors since reducing their volume greatly reduces the overall toxicity of the whole” or something like that.

]]> By: Gabriel http://us.arevablog.com/2009/08/12/power-engineering-article-looks-at-recycling-option-in-the-us/comment-page-1/#comment-161 Gabriel Tue, 25 Aug 2009 05:50:45 +0000 http://us.arevablog.com/?p=879#comment-161 "Radiotoxicity is reduced by a factor of 10 because the lower the volume of waste, the lower its toxicity" I don't see why? The toxicity is the volume of water required to dilute the waste to a maximum permissible concentration. If you juste remove the less radiotoxic elements, you can have a lower volume with almost the same toxicity. “Radiotoxicity is reduced by a factor of 10 because the lower the volume of waste, the lower its toxicity”
I don’t see why?
The toxicity is the volume of water required to dilute the waste to a maximum permissible concentration.
If you juste remove the less radiotoxic elements, you can have a lower volume with almost the same toxicity.

]]>