Nuclear waste in Space, disposal of...

[MJFrog]

I'm starting this thread because the subject was causing another thread to become severely off-topic. My original post in that thread in response to Icarus comment:

Finally, for those that expound the virtues of Nukes in any fashion, consider this. Until you can convince me that waste can be made inert such that it is not deadly for 1000's of years it is a non starter. The idea of storing it deep in the earth is all well and good, but to think that could be made secure for 1000's of years from every nut job/fanatic who wants to get it and make some sort of statement is nuts. We can't keep anything really safe.

Icarus

was as follows:

Let me take a potshot at this then.

Firstly, the French nuclear industry has demonstrated that recycling spent nuclear waste is not only possible, but efficient and safe. Yes, you need to guard against the kooks and terrorists, but we do that anyway while storing our waste at the bottom of huge 'swimming' pools.

Secondly, for that irreducible amount of waste that cannot be recycled practically, there is a 100% safe location to dispose of it that we have the technology today to send it to. Nobody seems to realize that there is an enormous nuclear reactor only 98 million miles away that can make mincemeat of any quantity of radioactive waste we want to send its way.

HTH

There were numerous follow-ups as to why this may be a bad idea.

How 'bout it folks? Topic is open for discussion.

[MJFrog]

patsparks reply in the previous thread:

Send spent radioactive waste to the sun, a great idea and perfectly safe!

yeah right!

My response:

A co-worker of mine was hospitalized for several weeks and will be out indefinitely because he was struck from behind while riding his bike. Now how's that go about bike-riding being good for one's health?

The point is that NOTHING this side of the grave is absolutely safe. Accidents happen and people should be prepared to avoid/minimize the effect of them. In the case of a catastrophic failure of the launch vehicle, the waste container should be designed such that its contents will remain contained even after an explosion. This is technologically possible.

[rcf@eventide.com]

Nuclear waste is so dangerous because it's highly radioactive and concentrated in one place.

Why not:
1: Reprocess it (as is already being done) to remove the useful bits such as uranium and plutonium.
2: Hold on to it at secure facilities for tens of years (NOT hundreds or thousands) to let the isotopes with short half-lives and thus extreme radioactivity decay. (Already being done.)
3: Instead of trying to find some place to store it securely "forever," disperse it over a large area of a few hundred square miles, such as a desert.

Yes, the desert will be somewhat more radioactive than normal, but nobody is going to live there. The effort of re-concentrating the waste will be enormous and very dangerous if some terrorist wants to give it a try. And the area may emit a weak but very pretty blue glow visible from space.

Richard

[jayman]

I still believe that it would be a horrible waste of a valuable resource to just send the spent fuel bundles into the sun. Of course, the sun wouldn't care

But if we were to send bundles into an impact with our star, we would have to launch them from a fairly isolated area, to minimize to the greatest extent possible, any possibility of fallout from a failed launch vehicle

During the height of Cold War nuclear testing in the Pacific, Johnston Island proved ideal for this purpose. Johnston Island is remote, isolated, thus easy to patrol and defend from terrorists

There have been isolated failures of the Thor rockets used during exoatmospheric nuclear testing. One was detonated shortly after takeoff, due to a booster rocket failure. Another kerploded on the launch pad itself. Other failures shortly after launch, with warheads aboard

http://www.astronautix.com/sites/johndle2.htm

Space Launch Report

Modern rockets are far more reliable than the old Thor, as the Thor started life in the late 1950's.

So, if we are faced with the prospect of keeping spent fuel bundles around in giant swimming pools forever, or shooting them off into the sun, I guess I'd have to vote for the sun

Again, proper "reburn" to transmutate not only spent fuel, but weapons stockpiles, is the proper approach

[MJFrog]

Originally Posted by jayman

I still believe that it would be a horrible waste of a valuable resource to just send the spent fuel bundles into the sun. Of course, the sun wouldn't care

<snip>

So, if we are faced with the prospect of keeping spent fuel bundles around in giant swimming pools forever, or shooting them off into the sun, I guess I'd have to vote for the sun

Again, proper "reburn" to transmutate not only spent fuel, but weapons stockpiles, is the proper approach

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. The waste to be shipped off to good ol' Sol is the dregs from the recycling process.

I agree--it would be an enormous waste of a valuable resource to send the fuel rods themselves. And enormously expensive in terms of mass as well--they're too bulky. But if you want to throw a few warheads in there for disposal before liftoff I won't tell.

[Shawn Clark]

Yes, you need to guard against the kooks and terrorists, but we do that anyway while storing our waste at the bottom of huge 'swimming' pools.

Because as we all know, terrorists can't swim.

[patsparks]

Originally Posted by rcf@eventide.com

Nuclear waste is so dangerous because it's highly radioactive and concentrated in one place.

Why not:
1: Reprocess it (as is already being done) to remove the useful bits such as uranium and plutonium.
2: Hold on to it at secure facilities for tens of years (NOT hundreds or thousands) to let the isotopes with short half-lives and thus extreme radioactivity decay. (Already being done.)
3: Instead of trying to find some place to store it securely "forever," disperse it over a large area of a few hundred square miles, such as a desert.

Yes, the desert will be somewhat more radioactive than normal, but nobody is going to live there. The effort of re-concentrating the waste will be enormous and very dangerous if some terrorist wants to give it a try. And the area may emit a weak but very pretty blue glow visible from space.

Richard

Yeah true

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

[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)

[ShellyT]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

Because as we all know, terrorists can't swim.

If they don't want to die before reaching the spent fuel, they'll need a lead wet suit.

[MJFrog]

Originally Posted by Shawn Clark

Because as we all know, terrorists can't swim.

Exactly, not many swimming pools in the middle of the desert.

j/k