Israel Develops System to Neutralize Nuclear Waste

(IsraelNN.com) Israel has developed a new technology that is supposed to safely dispose of radioactive waste.

The system was developed by Environmental Energy Resources (EER), an Israeli company that helped clean up after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and is based on plasma gasification melting (PMG) technology. The toxic waste is turned into a highly ionized gas, broken down, solidified, melted and vitrified - forming a solid glassy environmentally benign material when cooled.

The process was developed together with scientists from Haifa’s Technion and the Russian research institute of Kurchatov in Moscow. According to EER, the facility turns radioactive medical and municipal waste into harmless solid substances at a low level of radiation, which leaves no pollution in the soil or water – both above and below ground.

EER says the process is economically and environmentally superior to all other waste disposal methods such as landfill and incineration, as well as other non-incineration thermal treatments.

<snip>

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/121880

Granted, I don't know much about this stuff, but this strikes me as being good news. Perhaps those who are more up on the science than I am, can weigh in.

If we can find a way to safely store nuclear waste, there would be very little dangers associated with modern nuclear power plants.

This waste has to be disposed of,so I hope they have success.

On the other hand, the luddite contingent will doubtless explain that we can't trust this process, it might have unintended consequences; that plus the fact that this is an Israeli company, means that this discussion may not be productive.

Still it seems like good news to me.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

And start cleaning up all the DU our two militaries have bombarded that country with

If this helps us along the path to dealing with the issue better.. great.

Furthermore, the heat and radioactivity generated by this material accelerates this process.

Incorporation in to ceramic matrices is a better way to go...

(or not produce it at all in the first place)

See also:

Nuclear fusion deal 'victory for humanity' (Reuters/CNN)
Topic started by eppur_se_muova on Nov-21-06 03:17 PM (8 replies)
Last modified by Tesha on Nov-29-06 12:45 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=228&topic_id=25269

A new cyclic cyclohexylcarbodiimide mediated route to DMC discovered.
Topic started by NNadir on Aug-04-05 11:59 PM (9 replies)
Last modified by NNadir on Aug-07-05 12:36 PM
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=228&topic_id=10713

My thoughts and ideas
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1634181#1635506

The instability of atomic isotopes causes radioactivity. That process is at the atomic level. The only thing that can make a radioactive substance environmentally "safe" (non-radioactive) is by the passage of (a lot of) time, as these substances transmute into lead.

This is just a fancy way of describing a long-existing process for encasing nuclear waste in glass for long-term storage -- the ionization process is probably superior to the old melting process, but by no means does it "neutralize" radioactive materials and by no means is it impossible to reprocess this waste back into nuclear materials.

The only thing that's different about a gaseous process is that it's easier to get an even distribution of nuclear waste material within the glass encasement material.

The old process was to melt waste into a liquid form and mix it with molten glass.

It sounds like this new process gassifies the waste material and then injects it into molten glass - you may be able to get a finer distribution that way than mixing liquid waste with liquid glass. But, this is not a fundamentally dissimilar process.

" Gassification is at the molecular level. The instability of atomic isotopes causes radioactivity. That process is at the atomic level."

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Gassification "is at" the molecular or atomic "level" depending on the species. Radioactivity occurs at the nuclear level.

It just changes its state by heating from a solid into a gas. The nuclear material is then mixed with a liquid silicon material and then cools into a plasma-like crystaline structure mixed in with the glass (technically, a plasma).

I'm not sure what you mean by "gassification 'is at' the molecular or atomic 'level' depending on the species".

Thanks for the refresher on basic chemistry. A pure isotope, like U235, remains atomic in its gaseous state, while a compound like Uranium Hexafluoride will remain molecular if gassified.

Species also refers to animals. The only radioactive animal I'm familiar with is this guy:

"It just changes its molecular state by heating from a solid into a gas."

Well, yeah, gassification is a process involving a change of state. It's only molecular if you start out with molecules though. Still, I don't know what you're on about.

"Species commonly refers to animals."

Not big on chemistry, are you? Species commonly refers to different compounds, elements, etc. Uranium and Uranium hexafluoride are two different species, one atomic in nature, the other molecular.

That is a term used in chemistry.

The problem seems to be with the EPA and the DOE.
They refuse to believe it when they see it.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=411405755714495752&q=Browns+Gas+additional+properties

but you can't eliminate it.

Plutonium is forever.

Plutonium is not forever, nor is any radioactive element. All of them eventually decay to something stable.

Wanta wait around with it in your lungs until it stabilizes?

You STILL have a bunch of high gamma emitters and other goodies left over. The point of vitrification is to render fissionable material unusable for nuclear bombs.

materials. It would be a ridiculously expensive way to get U235 OR Pu234, but . . . actually, consdering that the primary impurity would be silicon, it might actually be easier than starting with uranium ore.

... would deter most who might attempt it.

Sort of like collecting the atoms of gold from seawater, and why no one bothers to do that.


At least, that's my understanding of the issue from what I've read.

manufacture by the conversion of yellow cake to Uranium hexafluoride gas and extracting U235 by the gaseous diffusion process. Would certainly be cheaper than obtaining Pu from a reactor, assuming you had to build a reactor.

Not something one would try in their garage, certainly.

This means that aside from radioactivity release from a nuclear plant, it would be possible to eliminate nuclear waste from harming the environment. In other words that means we are close to having a super clean method of producing energy!!!!

It sounds like a very good way to store it safely.

Read the discussion upthread. Everyone here seems to agree that this may be some technical improvement of a long-existing method of encasing nuclear waste in glass. That's all it is. Doesn't mean nuclear power is safe or that there is no longer a nuclear waste disposal problem.

Sorry. I wish there was an easy solution.