disposal of nuclear waste?

Question

why cant we put nuclear waste in a capsule mounted on a rocket and shoot it to the sun.Even if it was hit by and asteriod wouldnt the waste be deluted by the time it came back to earth

Answer 1

Both above answers are correct... Just putting waste into orbit would be enormously expensive, and waste full in terms of fuel and material. To send a waste rocket to the sun would take additional fuel and material.

On the chance that something went wrong, and the rocket exploded or crashed during launch, the radioactive waste would cause us (the atmosphere) the greatest amount of damage. Sort of the ultimate dirty bomb!

The waste from fission reactors does emit ionizing radiation and will do so for many thousands of years... however, It does so pretty slowly, and can be safely buried away from ground water with relative ease and much less expensively then blasting it into space. This waste is dangerous, but not as hazardous as you may have been led to believe. Most of the isotopes generated are found naturally and can be buried easily.

Furthermore, no carbon emissions, tremendous energy to mass production ratio... so burying a little waste once and a while (while not perfect) is a pretty sweet deal.

If we think long term... a sad truth will come upon us... even if everyone hated nuclear energy and decided not to use it now... fossil fuel will one day run out (or very low) and then we will be forced to use nuclear energy anyway...

So I ask you... Why not convert sooner rather than later, and then still have at least some Oil, Coal, and Methane available for other uses later?

Just a thought...

Answer 2

The government actually already has a radioactive waste disposal site that utilizes the concept of disposal in salt, it is called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. I was able to take a tour of the facility, and the concept is actually quite fascinating. The salt will naturally grow around the drums to completely envelope them and, because it is salt, there are no worries about water transporting contamination away from the site. Additionally, when the site is finally closed, the government plans on putting several different types of markers to warn future generations of what is buried there. Of course, I find it hard to believe that anyone will want to dig a half mile down it the middle of the desert, but hey, you never know. I, for one, cannot understand how radioactive waste disposal would be considered unethical. Whether you agree with nuclear power or not, fact is that we already have a lot of this waste that has been generated. What would be unethical is just to continue ignoring the issue thus greatly increasing the risk of exposure from the waste that is currently stored in facilities that were not designed for long term storage or disposal.

Answer 3

Too expensive, and far too dangerous. Some of that waste will kill anyone who gets anywhere near it because it's intensely radioactive. Even worse, launch vehicles fail at a rate of up to 5 percent. That means every time there's a launch there's up to a 1 out of 20 chance the rocket will explode at liftoff or during the ascent, fail to reach orbit and fall back to Earth, get into orbit and then the upper stage fails to fire and it's stranded in Earth orbit. Then it will likely either explode up there when corrosion allows the fuels to mix or drag will cause it to re-enter and burn up. When that happens, highly radioactive and toxic material will rain down somewhere. Once out of Earth's gravitational field, yet another problem arises. Escaping from the Earth is fairly easy, but getting close to the Sun, let alone sending something on an impact course with it is another story. The rocket would have to kill off all of it's velocity with respect to the Sun, and to do that requires a huge upper stage, like the S-IVB's that send men to the moon during the Apollo missions. An upper stage powerful enough just to send a few tons would require a huge launch vehicle. We had a lot of trouble just getting to Mercury with Mariner 10 and now MESSENGER. No, launching nuclear waste, especially spent nuclear fuel or the highly radioactive liquid wastes created during the construction of thermonuclear bombs is a reckless folly at best. It's too costly, inefficient, and dangerous. It's far better to avoid creating this deadly material that remains a threat for 250,000 years and longer in the first place.

Answer 4

I'd bury it in a geologically stable area or encase it in concrete. It's a lot cheaper and less dangerous than launching it anywhere.

Recall that radiation is a natural part of the environment. Uranium is not a rare element in the earth's crust, so most rock especially granites are mildly radioactive. Would you launch all granite outcrops into space also?

Oh and don't forget that burning fossil fuel releases low-level radioactive gases into the atmosphere. Do we collect and condense that and rocket it off too?

Answer 5

The problem is the risk. If one of the rockets would blow up in the atmosphere or otherwise not make it out of the planet, the consequences would be catastrophic.

Answer 6

too expensive (at least with current technology)

Answer 7

i want to dump it on iraq