Sending Nuclear Waste to the sun?

Question

I find this topic very interesting. SecondStar have already asked a question using kamikaze techniques. Instead of that, why not we build a tower that extends until it breaks the gravity. It will need a large base to support the weight but overall this is the most safest idea.

Then simply loading these wastes in capsules and launch it into space towards the sun.

So what do you guys think?

Answer 1

Check out this site. It answers most of your questions. If an adequate material is ever developed, the construction costs and problems will still be horrendous. You have to start at geosynchronous orbit and build DOWN, while building a counterbalance UP to maintain the center of gravity at geosynchronous orbit.

then comes the elevator, rocket construction materials, fuel, and finally, your nuclear waste.

Hopefully, we will develop controlled nuclear fusion before then and remove the need to get rid of fission waste. The beanstalk will be built, though, if it becomes possible. It's one possible doorway to colonization of the Moon and Mars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator

Answer 2

Oh, I fairly have had an similar sentiment. which will be wonderful! at the same time as we are at it, why no longer get rid of each and every of the nuclear guns!!!! (sigh) regrettably, that's too risky. for instance: no longer all shuttles finished the vacation outside of our earth's envelope. after we've mess ups, they don't look purely devastating by using human deaths, yet also because each and each and every project has been planned for particular initiatives, and years of analysis without caution end at a failed launch. those effects will be heavily extra unfavourable in the adventure that they protected huge quantities of nuclear waste. i imagine you're properly. i imagine that shall we improve our technologies sufficient to deliver all nuclear waste on a magic carpet vacation to the daylight. although, why would a authorities spend that type of money? The research and hardware prices will be significant. contained in the lengthy run it would keep funds...the Earth...and so on. yet politicians purely have 2-8 years in place of work. the form of unpolluted-up project would take longer than that, so there is no incentive. If there turned right into a huge scale universal idea that voters had to sparkling nuclear waste from the earth, then it ought to ensue. yet keep in techniques, our present day president would not even believe contained in the greenhouse result. with any success i'm incorrect. it will be significant to demonstrate screen that i'm neither a political candidate or a scientist.

Answer 3

well.

first the gravity doesn't "break" at any point. Sure if you went very far you would get to the point where the sun's attraction would be larger than the Earth's, but that's quite far away (remember, the sun is 100 million miles away).

but suppose we are happy with a shorter tower, just to save the worst part of any space trip. Well you'd still need to lift all the stuf up there. You'd need a lot of energy for that. Which would come from where, nuclear plants maybe? ;-)

not to mention all the risks you'd have with all the nuclear waste transports to that single point on Earth: transport risks (imagines trains and trains and trucks loaded with the stuff, and some accidents...), terrorist risks, you name it.

and of course you'd need to find money to pay for this - but where?

and then on top of that you want to launch the stuff into space? Well even if you use low power rockets (since you'd be up) that would still cost a lot of money, create a lot of pollution, etc.


No, frankly, you solution seems worse than the problem.


But yes of course, if we had some cheap and easy teletransport (beaming) then yes, why not dump the stuff on the sun. This being said, I would hope that a civilisation that would have beaming, would also have a better source of energy than nuclear fission. They'd be using the power of the sun for example (harnessing just 1/12'000th of what hits the Earth, would cover our energy needs fully).

It's just getting it there that's pretty tough.

Answer 4

The tallest structure on earth is about 2000 ft (700 M) above the surface. It's a radio tower in the Dakotas.

A tower with a top where you could let go of things and they would stay in orbit would have to achieve geosynchrous orbit.

Geosyncrous orbit is 35,786 km above the surface. that is 50,000 times taller than the tallest thing we have ever built.

Answer 5

Ok, first, there would have to be a safe way to get the waste to the sun. Want to trust a rocket? How many do not make it out of earth's gravity? How many is too many when they are carrying radioactive waste?

As for the tower idea, forget it.
There has been talk of a space station and a sort of elevator to earth, but again; how many failures will we tolerate, especially with dangerous material like radioactive waste.

So in short, we are stuck dealing with the problem here on earth.

Answer 6

Nah it would waste too much money and energy. Just sending it into space would be sufficient enough beacause space is endless and eventually the waste could just burn up in a planet's Atmosphere.

Answer 7

You can't build a tower that high. The base wont support the weight.

Answer 8

The sun is alrerady stable with its own fuel and even a small imbalance in its core or outside magma could really make it unstable and make it either a supernova or a pulsar either of the cases it will not be world war 3 that will destroy our planet.

Still a very interesting question and I suppose instead of the sun direct it towards a star that is further away because the time we feel the effect of that destruction we all will be long dead.

Answer 9

A Space elevator is the answer and will probably occur in 50 years or sooner.

Answer 10

if we sent Nuclear Waste towards the sun it may also crash some satellite and it would cost more than anything