Nuclear waste in Space, disposal of...

[MJFrog]

Originally Posted by patsparks

Yeah true

Well if it hasn't got 2 legs and a self destructive nature does it really matter?

Radioactive waste has no business being stored any place on this planet. It needs to be processed to remove all reusable radioactive material. The 'clean' output from this process should be no more radioactive than the uranium ore it came from originally. If it isn't, then more processing needs to be done to make it cleaner. Then it should go back (as much as possible) into the mined-out tunnels of uranium mines.

The unusable radioactive dross needs a one-way trip to Sol.

[ShellyT]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

Last nuclear plant cost estimates I've seen for the U.S. were not particularly attractive. I'm old enough that I still recall the cost overruns and "stranded cost" of the last round of nuke buildouts so I have zero confidence in any numbers the industry publishes on the matter....or at least I would start with a 3X multiplier for any cost per kwh they publish..

Trying move it out of the other thread.
Not saying to trust the industry, but part of the cost overruns and increased rates is the amortization of legal fees fighting suits to halt or stop production.
Like I said, don't trust the other side out right, but don't overlook your sides contribution to the problem.

[ShellyT]

Originally Posted by tino_ale

I read an interresting article about radioactive long term storage a while ago.

I mostly remember two "funny" problematic facts about this option :
1/ The memory of humanity cannot be garanteed and history has shown that the maximum period of time during which humanity has been able to keep precise data was approx 500 years.

Basically : we cannot garantee that humanity will not "forget" that we have stored materials under the surface that will remain deadly for thouthands and thouthands of years

2/ Humans have a tendency to "like" digging into the ground. The risk that a forgotten long term storage is digged out in the broad future is real and cannot be overlooked

"The earth is not a gift from our parents. It is being lent to us by our children..." We do need to keep this in mind (if we only care about our children)

I read an article with suggestions addressing this issue. We'd have to erect some type of durable, symbolic warning sign in case a civilization collaspe to scare of people. Think Stonehedge that made eerie noises in wind.

Maybe not the same article, but old salt mines were suggested as a storage site. Their deep underground, dry, and the heat of the waste will cause the salt to expand around it, sealing it in over time.

[jayman]

Originally Posted by MJFrog

If you review my original post you'd see that I am NOT proposing sending the spent fuel bundles coming straight from the nuclear plant.

No, of course not. I was just playing "what if"

Proper reprocessing/transmutation will take care of at least 90% of the waste volume. The remainder that is of no use, could be treated to a lovely rocket ride. Or, as you suggested, put right back into those uranium mines

Problem with reprocessing/transmutation is that every step in the goal of extracting more long-lived actinides dramatically adds to the cost. Eg: easily reprocess 30%, costs "x." To get 50%, takes 2x. 80% takes 20x, 90% takes 200x, etc

Folks appear comfy with swimming pools full of spent fuel bundles, but not comfy with dealing with them

Originally Posted by ShellyT

Maybe not the same article, but old salt mines were suggested as a storage site. Their deep underground, dry, and the heat of the waste will cause the salt to expand around it, sealing it in over time.

We already have the results of intensely radioactive debris in a salt dome. During the Cold War, under Project Dribble, two nuclear bombs were detonated in the same cavity within the Tatum Salt Dome, which is located near Baxterville, Mississippi

The goal of Dribble, part of the Vela Uniform test series, was to test the issue of "decoupling." It was theorized that somebody could detonate a test bomb in an underground bomb crater made by a previous bomb, which would distort seismic readings and give foreign powers the impression the bomb tested was of lower yield that it actually was

This was important for two reasons: 1, that the US thought they could test larger bombs, but have the former USSR believe they were much smaller yield, and 2) to verify that the former USSR wouldn't do the same thing

The first test, Salmon, created the cavity within the salt dome. A couple of years later, Sterling was detonated within the previous cavity

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

A couple of years after that, two more tests were done within the same shot cavity, using natural gas pumped in to create a conventional explosion.

Apparently the salt dome contained all the radiation

[fuzzy1]

... The unusable radioactive dross needs a one-way trip to Sol.

Direct one-way trips to the sun, with chemical rockets, are incredibly expensive and a waste of fuel. Electric rockets are not yet up to the task. Indirect trips, via planetary billiards or lacrosse, add the additional risk of returning to and colliding with Earth, which is why so many anti-nuke activists protested similar nuclear powered interplanetary missions.

Dumping these wastes into Jupiter, or expelling them from the Solar System forever, will be much much more cost effective than dumping them into Sol.

[donee]

Hi All,

I am against this. We already have nuclear waste in space - the Van Allen Radiation belts. One screw up and the livable orbits around the Earth will be gone.

[richard schumacher]

Someone thinks of this every few days. It's much too expensive, and not necessary. Breeders and thorium reactors can burn what we now call "waste" as fuel, to the point that it is less radioactive than the original ore. If the day ever comes that it is economical to dispose of anything by dropping it into the Sun we will already have solved all of our energy problems.

[Celtic Blue]

Originally Posted by ShellyT

Like I said, don't trust the other side out right, but don't overlook your sides contribution to the problem.

I was young enough then that I didn't have a "side."

Furthermore, the concept of this all being about lawsuits is as ridiculous as the conservative position on why health care is so expensive in this country. Whatever drivers there were then to increase the cost are even stronger now with the lone exception of high inflation...but don't hold your breath on inflation. The country is unwilling to pay its bills and the only other option when that happens is inflation...unless the GOP takes over cuts spending and sends us into a new Great Depression (this is the deflationary death spiral that McCain's economic advisors wanted--apparently the same folks that Hoover used. )

At any rate, since the net impact of the drivers appears to be approximately the same, you can expect the same sort of cost overruns, and of course, no paying forward for clean up.

Hence, it's a non-starter, and I would be willing to place a long term wager on my estimate being rather close to the mark when compared to industry's.

[MJFrog]

Originally Posted by fuzzy1

Direct one-way trips to the sun, with chemical rockets, are incredibly expensive and a waste of fuel. Electric rockets are not yet up to the task. Indirect trips, via planetary billiards or lacrosse, add the additional risk of returning to and colliding with Earth, which is why so many anti-nuke activists protested similar nuclear powered interplanetary missions.

Dumping these wastes into Jupiter, or expelling them from the Solar System forever, will be much much more cost effective than dumping them into Sol.

The fastest, least expensive (in terms of fuel) way to send a rocket out of the Solar System is to get a gravity assist from a close approach to the sun. Add just a little more fuel and you get your Solar disposal.

Dumping those same wastes into Jupiter will take a somewhat larger amount. It also adds the risk that if some kind of intelligent life exists in the clouds of Jupiter, they may get a little P-O'd at us for dumping it on top of them... and maybe try doing something about it.

[MJFrog]

Originally Posted by donee

Hi All,

I am against this. We already have nuclear waste in space - the Van Allen Radiation belts. One screw up and the livable orbits around the Earth will be gone.

The Van Allen Radiation belts are a natural phenomena and are not nuclear 'waste'.