If nuclear power leaves a small carbon footprint, but the waste is so bad that people fret using it, why not send the waste into space? Send it on a ship aimed at the sun and let the waste burn up in the solar atmosphere? What kind of fallout would effect the universe since space is already a radioactive environment?
2007-07-26 07:45:55 · 10 answers · asked by Bobby 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
In the future when sending things to space is a little more cost effective they probably will do that. Right now the cost to send all the nuclear waste we produce into space would be very high.
Many of the "too dangerous" answers make the assumption that it would need to be "shot" into space using a rocket. Not true. Currently NASA is working on a "space elevator" that would be able to send things into space without the need for rocket propulsion. If they can get it to work, it would provide a safe means of sending things into space without the risk of a catastrophic explosion. Other methods of course could be developed as well, so in the future, anything is possible. Currently, it is too dangerous and cost ineffective (not to mention logistically impossible).
2007-07-26 07:50:04 · answer #1 · answered by CellBioGuy 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
More energy would probably be used getting the material into space as the nucleur fuel itself generated before it was waste. Also, the sun is not some very hot bonfire, but a constantly exploding nucleur bomb generating an enormous shock wave known as the solar wind. The waste would ionize and probably get blown back twoards earth long before it ever hit the sun. The solar wind is why a comet's tail always points away from the sun.
Nucleur waste is a number of lighter chemical elements formed from the fission of Uranium. Basically it is identical to nucleur "fallout" generated by an atomic bomb, since the means of energy generation is the same. Radioactive isotopes of things such as Strontium and Iodine are the bulk of the material, and most of these materials have half lives of under 100 years. This means that in about 300 years, the waste will be only weakly radioactive and no longer very dangerous. This is why nucleur waste is encased in concrete and buried.
2007-07-26 15:03:28 · answer #2 · answered by Roger S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sending it into the sun is the only way to actually -destroy- nuclear waste. The heat in the sun is such that the atoms of the material come apart and are no longer radioactive.
The problem is cost. It's several hundred thousand dollars per pound! And we have millions of pounds of waste.
The only alternative is to store the waste somewhere until we think of something. The problem is that, especially here in the US, we never think too far down the road. We think if it's safe for 100 years, well then it's not OUR problem, let the people who are around then figure something else out. But the waste will be dangerous for tens of thousands of years.
2007-07-26 14:57:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
As we know, shooting things into space is not a 100% guarenteed success. The risk of something going wrong with the rocket during launch is small but the consequences of a huge load of highly radioactive waste crashing down somewhere is unacceptable.
I like my idea better. Line the Mexican/US boarder with contained but unshielded spent nuclear waste. Put up a small chain link fence with warning signs about the lethal radiation.
Two problems solved.
2007-07-26 14:56:14 · answer #4 · answered by lunatic 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
1. The amounts are huge, and we are not good at getting stuff into space. It would cost a fortune and would probably negate the energy gain.
2. One accident - just one - with a rocket and all life on Earth is dead. We have a rocket accident about every 18 months.
2007-07-26 14:55:18 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Plus then we wouldn't be adding to the number of ways that we are making this planet inhabitable, little by little, for humans.
2007-07-26 14:56:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A.-its expensive
B.-its dangerous-if the rocket explodes during its ascent it would scatter the waste all over the world
2007-07-26 14:53:07 · answer #7 · answered by ianbell 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
This would be a very beneficial idea if it were only practical. However, like you've heard it would be too expensive and dangerous.
2007-07-26 16:02:35 · answer #8 · answered by somerslats 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
being as it sounds you will never be involved in making decisions like these how bout you just leave it to the experts.
2007-07-26 14:53:46 · answer #9 · answered by jovan kambell 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the government would NOT pay that much money to do that.
2007-07-26 21:34:53 · answer #10 · answered by jezzj_jamj 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋