Talk:High-level waste
Contents
About final disposal[edit]
I have to agree with previous comment (made over 3 years ago). This conclusion about final disposal being not urgent is somewhat misleading and biased. It would maybe be correct to say that final disposal is not yet a critical issue and there is still time for deeper research, but this problem is becoming substantially more important (especially when one takes the time to calculate through these given numbers). I suggest rephrasing this sentence to make it free from slight subjective flavour; or add a reference to a valid scientific work that backs up this statement. --88.196.228.192 (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
final disposal[edit]
Issues for final disposal are not urgent?? How is this the conclusion from the numbers given? Wagsbags March 6 2007
Merge[edit]
I posted the Merge today. There is no article on Spent nuclear fuel, so I redirected that term to Radioactive waste. Simesa 01:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that the merge could be a good thing, the current article has the potneital to confuse the reader as it does not explain the difference between spent fuel and so called high level waste (which is PUREX first cycle (Highly active cycle) raffinate). You might want to consider merging with the Nuclear fuel page, as I have added a section on spent fuel there.
In short.......
Spent fuel is used nuclear fuel which has been used in the form of the used fuel without chemical processing.
High level waste is the mixture of minor actinides and Fission products which results from the chemical processing of used nuclear fuel to recover the major actinides (U and Pu).
Cadmium 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
4/9/06: I say keep it a seperate article, but note the relationship. I came here looking for the difference between low-level and high-level nuclea material, and "radioactive waste" does not explain this difference. Chris O.
- I believe the article should be separate. The publics' perception of waste as unimportant and that all waste is the same needs to be challenged and the differences between different waste streams with different waste management processes be made clear. --Alex 12:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Units[edit]
I had an issue with the following quote from the article:
- "A typical large nuclear reactor produces 25-30 tons of spent fuel per year. If the fuel were reprocessed and vitrified, the waste would be only about 3 cubic meters per year."
25-30 tons is a lot, and 3 cubic meters doesn't seem like a lot, but it wouldn't surprise me if this is extremely dense stuff. How much does 3 cubic meters weigh? Changing the units for comparison purposes doesn't seem smart. - MordredKLB 01:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Can I second that? Any kind of external source would be nice. 200.144.0.5 (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High-level waste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121203183127/http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/radioactive_waste.html to http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/radioactive_waste.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified[edit]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on High-level waste. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927034327/http://www.largeassociates.com/3144%20Spent%20Fuel/R3144-A2%20FINAL.pdf to http://www.largeassociates.com/3144%20Spent%20Fuel/R3144-A2%20FINAL.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
