Yo soy nuclear

Reducción del volumen de residuos con tecnología de plasma

(8 votos, media 3.63 de 5)

La Empresa Nacional de Residuos Radiactivos (Enresa), que gestiona el almacén centralizado de El Cabril, ubicado en el término municipal de Hornachuelos (Córdoba), ensayará un sistema de reducción de volumen de los residuos radiactivos con tecnología de plasma.

Lo que se persigue con esta iniciativa, según Enresa, es "el diseño y desarrollo de un incinerador mediante plasma, que permitirá una importante reducción en el volumen final de algunos residuos, así como el tratamiento de los residuos radiactivos de baja y media actividad, actualmente difíciles de tratar".

La utilización de la tecnología de plasma, "permite alcanzar, de una manera más o menos sencilla y a escala reducida, elevadas temperaturas para fundir algunos tipos de residuos. Esta fundición permite una importante reducción de volumen, superior a la conseguida en el proceso de incineración que se lleva a cabo actualmente en la instalación de El Cabril con determinados tipos de residuos, principalmente orgánicos".

En este caso se trata de un incinerador especial, "compuesto por dos electrodos de grafito dentro de un crisol cerámico", en el que, gracias a la tecnología de plasma, se alcanzan elevadas temperaturas, de más de 1.700 grados, que posibilitan la licuación -el cambio de estado de sólido a líquido- y la consiguiente reducción de volumen".

Una vez desarrollada la tecnología, se trata ahora de estudiar su aplicación al tratamiento de residuos radiactivos y, en este contexto, la gestión de los posibles gases originados en la combustión y los aspectos de la protección radiológica a tener cuenta serán las fases que, de acuerdo con las previsiones de Enresa, "se desarrollarán en la instalación de El Cabril a medio plazo".

En este sentido, desde Enresa se ha precisado que "este proyecto está todavía muy en pañales, pero si esa tecnología sigue adelante, se lograría una reducción de volumen bastante importante en la totalidad de residuos que se están produciendo ahora mismo, por ejemplo, en una central nuclear".

Comentarios

avatar Ric.
0
 
 
Este artículo habla de reducción del volumen (únicamente del volumen, no de la radiactividad) de los residuos de BAJA Y MEDIA, pero nada que ver con los verdaderamente preocupantes que son los de ALTA, es decir el combustible gastado de las centrales. Me parece bien que puedan quemar con plasma los guantes, mandiles y martillos contaminados de centrales nucleares y de hospitales para así guardarlos en una caja más pequeña pero es una anécdota intrascendente.
Nombre *
Email (para verificación y respuestas)
Código   
Enviar comentario
Cancelar
avatar pizpireto
0
 
 
JOHN W. GOFMAN, MEDICAL PHYSICIST

Nuclear Power: A Simple Question

Many people think nuclear power is so complicated it requires discussion at a high level of technicality. That's pure nonsense. Because the issue is simple and straightforward.

There are only two things about nuclear power that you need to know. One, why do you want nuclear power? So you can boil water. That's all it does. It boils water. And any way of boiling water will give you steam to turn turbines. That's the useful part.

The other thing to know is, it creates a mountain of radioactivity, and I mean a mountain: astronomical quantities of strontium-90 and cesium-137 and plutonium--toxi c substances that will last--strontium -90 and cesium for 300 to 600 years, plutonium for 250,000 to 500,000 years--and still be deadly toxic. And the whole thing about nuclear power is this simple: can you or can't you keep it all contained? If you can't, then you're creating a human disaster.

You not only need to control it from the public, you also need to control it from the workers. Because the dose that federal regulations allow workers to get is sufficient to create a genetic hazard to the whole human species. You see, those workers are allowed to procreate, and if you damage their genes by radiation, and they intermarry with the rest of the population, for genetic purposes it's just the same as if you irradiate the population directly.[27]

So I find nuclear power this simple: do you believe they're going to do the miracle of containment that they predict? The answer is they're not going to accomplish it. It's outside the realm of human prospects.

You don't need to discuss each valve and each transportation cask and each burial site. The point is, if you lose a little bit of it--a terribly little bit of it--you're going to contaminate the earth, and people are going to suffer for thousands of generations. You have two choices: either you believe that engineers are going to achieve a perfection that's never been achieved, and you go ahead; or you believe with common sense that such a containment is never going to be achieved, and you give it up.

If people really understood how simple a problem it is--that they've got to accomplish a miracle--no puffs like Three Mile Island--can't afford those puffs of radioactivity, or the squirts and the spills that they always tell you won't harm the public--if people understood that, they'd say, "This is ridiculous. You don't create this astronomical quantity of garbage and pray that somehow a miracle will happen to contain it. You just don't do such stupid things!"

Licensing a nuclear power plant is in my view, licensing random premeditated murder. First of all, when you license a plant, you know what you're doing--so it's premeditated. You can't say, "I didn't know." Second, the evidence on radiation-produ cing cancer is beyond doubt. I've worked fifteen years on it, and so have many others. It is not a question any more: radiation produces cancer, and the evidence is good all the way down to the lowest doses.

The only way you could license nuclear power plants and not have murder is if you could guarantee perfect containment. But they admit that they're not going to contain it perfectly. They allow workers to get irradiated, and they have an allowable dose for the population.[28] So in essence I can figure out from their allowable amounts how many they are willing to kill per year.

I view this as a disgrace, as a public health disgrace. The idea of anyone saying that it's all right to murder so many in exchange for profits from electricity--or what they call "benefits" from electricity--th e idea that it's all right to do that is a new advance in depravity, particularly since it will affect future generations.

You must decide what your views are on this: is it all right to murder people knowingly? If so, why do you worry about homicide? But if you say, "The number won't be too large. We might only kill fifty thousand--and that's like automobiles"--is that all right? . . .

People like myself and a lot of the atomic energy scientists in the late fifties deserve Nuremberg trials. At Nuremberg we said those who participate in human experimentation are committing a crime. Scientists like myself who said in 1957, "Maybe Linus Pauling is right about radiation causing cancer, but we don't really know, and therefore we shouldn't stop progress," were saying in essence that it's all right to experiment. Since we don't know, let's go ahead. So we were experimenting on humans, weren't we? But once you know that your nuclear power plants are going to release radioactivity and kill a certain number of people, you are no longer committing the crime of experimentation --you are committing a higher crime. Scientists who support these nuclear plants--knowing the effects of radiation--don' t deserve trials for experimentation; they deserve trials for murder. . . .

. . . The only solution is, you must stop all efforts to develop first-strike force solutions everywhere--whe ther they be nuclear or other--and move toward a more just society.

Even if you made an agreement to abolish all nuclear weapons, but you left established power structure in the U.S. and the USSR, they'd go on to research mind control or some chemical or biological thing. My view is, there exists a group of people in the world that have a disease. I call it the "power disease." They want to rule and control other people. They are a more important plague than cancer, pneumonia, bubonic plague, tuberculosis, and heart disease put together. They can only think how to obliterate, control, and use each other. They use people as nothing more than instruments to cast aside when they don't need them any more. There are fifty million people a year being consumed in a nutritional holocaust around the world; nobody gives a damn about starvation. If fifty million white Westerners were dying, affluent Western society would worry, but as long as it's fifty million Third World people dying every year, it doesn't matter.

In my opinion, what we need is to move toward being nauseated by people who want to be at the top, in power. Can you think of anything more ridiculous than that the Chinese, Russian, and American people let their governments play with superlethal toys and subject all of us to these hazards? The solution is not to replace one leader with another or to have more government. Society has to reorganize itself. The structure we have now is, the sicker you are socially, the more likely it is that you'll come out at the top of the heap.
Nombre *
Email (para verificación y respuestas)
Código   
Enviar comentario
Cancelar
Nombre *
Email (para verificación y respuestas)
Código   
Enviar comentario

Actualidad

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
24121 firmas

Divulgación

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

Sabías Que ...La tecnología nuclear, además de producir electricidad, tiene otras importantes aplicaciones en Medicina, Agroalimentación, Industria, Investigación o Medio Ambiente

 
busyCargando encuesta...