Should nuclear energy be phased out?

[Azael]

The most important question is what are you suggesting as a alternative to nuclear power to replace fossile fuel? Regular wind power surely can't fill the worlds energy needs. Solar power would need immense surfaces and would need to go down in price tenfold, hydropower puts huge areas underwater. Tidal power maby I don't know how good it is, but even that must have huge drawbacks on sea life.


Sounds a lot better to build now what is known to be safe and works good and start building alternatives when they become competitive.

 

[Cyrus]

Also new reactors that can run on the waste of other reactors and the waste of those reactors not beeing that long lived ect.

The problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that they make is REALLY nasty stuff.

gets working why not just put aside some of the power produces to shot it right into space.

Because if you shoot it to space and you have to abort and blow up the spacecraft , you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth.

Or burry it **** deep underground or somewhere in the ocean where it can slowely dissipate into ocean water.

Because, again, it seeps into the waters all around the world, and kills everything that consumes it. Like getting into the water table.

 

[Azael]

The problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that they make is REALLY nasty stuff.

What are the waste from them? I had the picture that the waste that can't be reused is mostly of short half life, so while very dangerous it doesn't have to be stored for such a long time.

Because if you shoot it to space and you have to abort and blow up the spacecraft , you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth. Sounds a lot better to build now what is known to be safe and works good and start building alternatives when they become competitive.

Killing everyone on Earth sounds very dramatic. It would probably be spread around so much that no one would notice one accident. I only mentioned it as a far fetched idea if they get something like the phoenix prototype to work.

Because, again, it seeps into the waters all around the world, and kills everything that consumes it. Like getting into the water table.

Either I am totaly ignorant or your seriously overestimating the dangers of radioactive waste.

What about this

http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/sea-based.htm

 

[Cyrus]

to be polite, I am not overestimating the dangers. Plutonium, for example, will sit there for about 25 thousand years. Thats the crap that comes out of breeder reactors.

 

[Azael]

Well that only means the other option is true lol :-)

Anyway Il withdraw from this discussion now since I have nothing more of value to add besides speculation.

 

[Cyrus]

It would not immediately kill everyone. But it would cause major reproductive problems and cancer that would eventually kill us all in a very unpleasant and painful way.

 

[Orefa]

Yes, if you don't know how they even work, I don't think you know about their impact.

Oh come on now. You don't have to be a surgeon to discuss abortion.

Do you think that smoke that comes out of the reactor cooling towers are pollution? My case in point.

No. And this thread was never based on this. You don't really have a "case in point".

And you said billiions of years, which is wrong.

And you mentionned 2000 years which is just as wrong. But on your part you did no't say half life so it's ok, and on my part I said I wasn't sure of my figures, so this is moot in both our cases.

 

[chroot]

My previous comments on the vastly overrated dangers of long half-life radioactive materials:

from https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=99215

I think you'll eventually learn the following: the Earth is an absolutely immensely large place. If you take a pound of plutonium-239 and distribute it evenly over the entire planet -- which is apparently your conception of the worst case -- each square meter receives 5.56470179 × 10^-22 kg of plutonium, or about 1400 atoms of plutonium.

1400 atoms of plutonium has a specific activity of 3.40828 x 10^-20 curies, or about 1.2610636 x 10^-09 decays per second. That's right, that's about one decay in 25 years.

You could go further and calculate the chances of those decay products actually hitting people -- most of them will go right into the Earth or right up into the atmosphere. Only a very very few will be emitted at the correct angle to strike a person. I could calculate this factor, but what's the point?

I'll let you extrapolate the figures for 100 pounds, or 10,000 pounds of plutonium released. Observe the trend:

It's utterly insignificant.

from https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=99149

By the way, your continued alarmism re: long half-life radioisotopes begs the comment:

Nearly all heavy metals have a biological half-life of less than six months. This means the half-life of the radioisotope is not a big deal, assuming that the people in the contaminated area are moved elsewhere so their consumption of the material stops.

Let's take an example: Cs-137, one of the most dangerous radioisotopes due to its chemical similarity to potassium.

1) The biological half-life of Cs-137 is about 115 days. (Source: CDC, http://www.bt.cdc.gov/radiation/prussianblue.asp )

2) The radiological half-life of Cs-137 is 30.17 years. (Source: DOE)

3) The specific activity of Cs-137 is 86.4 curies/g, or 3.2 x 10¹² beta decays per second per gram. (Source: DOE)

Let's say a very unlucky person ingests an entire milligram of pure Cs-137. How many decays will his body experience in the time period until the concentration of Cs-137 is his body is 1% of the original dose?

This takes 6.64 biological half-lives, or about two years.

After two years, about 95% of the Cs-137 is still active.

The total dose received by the subject is 1.42429 x 10¹² decays over those two years.

If the radiological half-life for Cs-137 were instead 10,000 years, 330 times longer, the total dose would be 1.43842 x 1012 decays, or just about 1% more decays.

Long half-life radioactive materials are actually less dangerous than short half-life radioactive materials. Virtually no one seems to really understand this basic fact.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Why not develop 'clean coal' power plants. The US and most other industrialised nations have massive amounts of coal available to them. Enough to last hundreds of years.

The cost of a clean coal power plant is around 25% dearer than a conventional one and the additional cost for sequestering the 750 million tons of carbon dioxide emitted each year is estimated to be around $31 million p/a.

This sounds a lot cheaper and safer than adding new nuclear power plants especially as 50% of the US electricity supply is already being produced in coal fired power plants and so the infrastructure is already in place.

"Clean coal" is a good idea (existing plants should be retrofitted immediately), but it must be remembered that it isn't completely clean, just cleaner.

There was a NOAA program a while back, its not that much. It said something to the effect that if we used all the nuclear power plants around the world, it would only last ~70? years. It would run out quite fast.

I suspect that the program assumes that we'd continue using existing obsolete designs, wouldn't use reprocessing, and economics would not make other extraction methods economical. Take away those unrealistic (wrong) assumptions, and the numbers get a lot better. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power#Fuel_resources

Isnt there huge ammounts of uranium that can be extracted from sea water??

How acurate is this claim from this page?

The basic problem is that we don't know if it'll work (by that I mean the economics in addition to the engineering) until we do it. But that just puts us in the same place as the typical alternative energy sources.

The problem with nuclear power is the waste that will stay around for 2000 years, and no place to put it.

And isn't this highly optimistic? The numbers I saw were billions, not thousands. As in a billion pounds of depleted uranium with a half life of four billion years. While I'm not sure of these particular figures I have a good hunch that thinking in terms of just a few thousand years trivializes the extent of the problem.

Well, IIRC, the design criteria for the "permanent" waste site is 100,000 years. But the thing about depleted uranium is that it's depleted. It is less radioactive than the day it was dug out of the ground - that's why it has such a long half-life. In any case, we'll go into that more later...

As for sea water as a source of uranium, if there is so much in the ocean already, can it be used and then returned depleted? Surely this was considered and rejected for many good reasons.

Well, if you could pump the entire ocean through it to dilute it before returning it to the ocean, sure... Otherwise you will end up concentrating it somewhere.

So the uranium is refined before use, which brings up another question. Since you need radioactivity to fuel a reactor, why discard radioactive waste instead of refining it again and re-using it? Wrong wavelength? Not technically feasible for other reasons?

The waste can be reprocessed - it isn't reprocessed in the US for political reasons. But economics has a way of taking care of that sort of thing...

I'm showing my ignorance.

Not a problem: you are asking questions and showing a definite desire to learn.

You don't NEED radioactivity to fuel a reactor, it is a byproduct.

Um - if it isn't radioactive before going into the reactor, how does it undergo fission? :uhh:

No, nuclear fuel is dug out of the ground slightly radioactive, is enriched until it is somewhat more radioactive, and after it is used, it has different mixtures of radioactive elements. But both the DU waste from the ore and the waste from the reactor can be re-processed to get more use out of it.

On this subject, there is plenty of ignorance to go around.

This does not invalidate knowledge that deadly nuclear waste will have to be handled for thousands of years, which is the relevant factor.

Well, there is considerable debate about that. In my personal opinion, the 100,000 year design criteria is absurd. The spent fuel has bee sitting in local storage for quite some time, safe, secure, and not hurting anyone. In 50 years, do you know what will have happened? Nothing. It'll still be sitting there safe, secure, and not hurting anyone. So why the requirement for 100,000 years? Nevermind the virtual impossibility of that design criteria (which is why so much money has been spent on the permanent storage idea with virtually nothing to show for it), why do we really need it?

There's a question of intergenerational ethics here. Is it really fair to ask our great-great grandchildren to deal with a mess that we created?

Ironic thing to say, considering the whole global-warming mess that we aren't really dealing with (to say nothing for problem such as the national debt...)... Frankly, I think a few dozen gymnasium-sized storage sits is not a bad thing to pass down if it means eliminating fossil fuel pollution.

By then, nuclear might seem as old-fashioned as paddle-wheeled steamships seem to us. Alternatively, if our best minds can't figure out a solution now, why think that they will be able to in 100 years?

That's self-contradictory. In the first part you said that we're so smart we won't need nuclear power in the future and in the second that we're not smart enough to use nuclear power effectively. That also highlights the problem with making predictions about 100,000 year storage. What if we find another way in 50 years? Maybe we will and maybe we won't. Regardless of if either is correct, what we do know for sure right now is that our spent fuel is safe right now and global CO2 levels are rising right now. In 50 years (about as far in advance as we can really plan), we can end up with a waste disposal situation pretty much the same as we have now and no greenhouse gas problem. Seems good to me.

In another alternate future, something superbad could happen, like world war or a mass pandemic worse than the black plague, in which case, they may not have the economic wherewithal to deal with our waste.

Certainly - but if a pandemic kills off so many people that society collapses and we can't deal with our waste... are we going to care about our waste?

The problem is building something that's going to last longer than the Egyptian pyramids, and more impervious to burglers. And where is the money going to come from? Are we setting aside a trust fund now to be used in 100 years to store nuclear waste using a method we hope they figure out because we're too stupid? If so, I haven't heard about it.

Huh? I wouldn't recommend it, but the storage facility being planned likely will be built. With today's money. And since it will be required to be secure and not require maintenance, future money is not required.

as far as I can tell(Im not keeping updated on this) transmutation is very promising.

I don't know about transmutation per se (maybe...), but there are certainly reprocessing options.

The most important question is what are you suggesting as a alternative to nuclear power to replace fossile fuel?

Yes, the question requires an evaluation of the alternatives. Like I said, we can, of course, phase out nuclear power if we want to. Heck, the environmentalists were successful in getting nuclear power plant construction stopped after TMI - perhaps they will succeed in getting it phased-out (if we don't build any new plants, the old ones will need to be shut down eventually anyway). But at what cost? We've vastly increased fossil fuel energy production, and as a result, air pollution.

The problem with breeder reactors is that the waste that they make is REALLY nasty stuff.

Sure, but so what? Whether it's medium-nasty or REALLY nasty, if it's in a concrete building and not hurting anyone, what's the problem?

Because if you shoot it to space and you have to abort and blow up the spacecraft , you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth.

Shooting it into space probably isn't going to happen for other reasons, but nuclear fuel has already been shot into space and it's already crashed back to earth, and if properly designed, the fuel is not released. Anyway, "spray[ing] nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill[ing] everyone on earth" is just not something that would be possible - even if we just shot a bunch of 55 gallon drums up there.

to be polite, I am not overestimating the dangers.

To be polite, yeah, you are. For example:

Plutonium, for example, will sit there for about 25 thousand years.

Saying how long something will sit there doesn't say anything at all about how dangerous it is. Throwing big numbers of years around is just a scare tactic (in fact - it's an ironically inverted scare tactic since the longer the half-life, the less radioactive the material).

[some repetition of what Warren said, but I replied to posts in order. Besides, sometimes repetition helps]

 

[russ_watters]

Oh come on now. You don't have to be a surgeon to discuss abortion.

Agreed - Cryus, lay off Azael, and Azael, don't stop trying to learn just because someone talks down to you.

 

[chroot]

Oh come on now. You don't have to be a surgeon to discuss abortion.

Actually, I have to side with cyrusabdollahi on this one (can you believe it?). You do need to be a surgeon to competently debate the merits of different surgical abortion techniques.

In this case, if you don't know the physics of how reactors work, or the physics of how their waste interacts with biological systems, you are essentially unequipped to participate competently in a debate about how such wastes should be dealt with, or what the dangers really are.

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

<Hugs Azael> Aw shucks, I love you guyz.

Edit: <Hugs chroot> I love you too, thanks for the information.

Thanks for the info too Russ.

I wouldn't trust those things to hold in the material that long that safe though. Things have a way of finding failure that you did not expect.

In this case, if you don't know the physics of how reactors work, or the physics of how their waste interacts with biological systems, you are essentially unequipped to participate competently in a debate about how such wastes should be dealt with, or what the dangers really are.

Apparently myself included now. You guys owned me

 

[russ_watters]

More on this:

Anyway, "spray[ing] nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill[ing] everyone on earth" is just not something that would be possible - even if we just shot a bunch of 55 gallon drums up there.

The worst space-nuclear incident was Cosmos 954, which carried an actual reactor and was not designed to survive re-entry.

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/dangerous_reentries_000602.html

On January 24, 1978, Cosmos 954 reentered over Canada, with debris hitting the ground in frozen and scarcely populated areas in Canadian Arctic. The U.S. team, which many now believe was associated with the CIA, arrived in Canada to assist in the search. The day after the crash, they started overflights of the area trying to detect the radiation from the spacecraft 's remnants.

Before they picked up any indications, two people from a six-member group of adventurers returning to their camp found a crater with burned metal pieces in the ice. One of the unsuspecting men touched a strange object with his gloved hand. When a pair finally got to the camp ready to tell the rest of the group about their strange finding, they were told the news about the spacecraft crash. The authorities had already alerted the group by radio.

The group was warned not to approach within 1,000 feet (305 meters) of the debris. Fortunately, the piece handled by the man contained a negligible level of radiation. In the following days other pieces were found, scattered along frozen desert; one emitted 200 roentgens of radiation per hour -- the level which is enough kill a human after a two-hour exposure. A special container was hastily prepared to remove the object. For several months afterwards cleanup teams continued their efforts.

Not pleasant, but the waste wasn't spread through the atmosphere and no one was hurt.

Surprising to most people, it isn't all that difficult to make a container that can survive reentry, and even if it doesn't, most of the waste would land and just make for a messy clean-up. Waste that would vaporize would do so high in the atmosphere (as opposed to Chernoby's, which was low) and would dissipate.

And more: http://www.nuclearspace.com/past_accidents.htm

 

[russ_watters]

Actually, I have to side with cyrusabdollahi on this one (can you believe it?). You do need to be a surgeon to competently debate the merits of different surgical abortion techniques.

Heh - that isn't all that the issue encompasses, though.

Anyway, I personally think that a good half the purpose of these debates is to educate.

edit: Oh, and since this issue ultimately will not be decided by experts, it is important that we endeavour to reduce the ignorance level of the people who will be making the decisions.

edit2: In addition, since the energy issue requires knowledge of pretty much every scientific, engineering, and social science discipline, if being an expert is required, there isn't a person on the planet capable of dealing with the issue.

 

[russ_watters]

I wouldn't trust those things to hold in the material that long that safe though. Things have a way of finding failure that you did not expect.

Agreed - which is why the 100,000 year design criteria for the storage facility is absurd. With 50 year plans, we can do pretty much all that we really are capable of doing for minimizing the risk.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, I am talking more along the lines of you are filling up spaceship after spaceship with drums of this stuff and shooting it off into space. You are bound to have an accident sooner or later. All it takes is for one of them to land in a major city and dump its contents into a water source. Thats one risk I would not be willing to take. (also, I don't think that space our new trash can)

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I am talking more along the lines of you are filling up spaceship after spaceship with drums of this stuff and shooting it off into space.

Don't you think that's a little absurd? We're not quite that stupid that we wouldn't make an effort to make the containers secure. The containers for use in transporting waste to the storage facility are being tested by crashing freight trains into them and blowing them up!

You are bound to have an accident sooner or later.

Certainly true.

All it takes is for one of them to land in a major city and dump its contents into a water source. Thats one risk I would not be willing to take.

But how big of a risk is that really? 1 in a million? 1 in a billion? At some point, you have to decide if that risk is worth the trade-offs we are currently making: such as 20,000 people a year dying from air pollution in the US alone.

edit: caveat: launches have well-defined flight-plans. Even if the odds of a failure were, say, 1 in a 1000, there would be virtually no chance of the container finding its way to New York. They don't go in that direction.

(also, I don't think that space our new trash can)

Why not? It's a pretty big trash can...

 

[Cyrus]

"We're not quite that stupid that we wouldn't make an effort to make the containers secure. The containers for use in transporting waste to the storage facility are being tested by crashing freight trains into them and blowing them up! "

Sure, but to shoot it off into space, you are not going to have such a heavy duty containment vessle. Or you will have so little waste for so much payload it just is not practical.

I think the risk of that stuff getting into a water system is huge. 1 major accident could affect millions and destroy ecosystems.

Space is not a trash can, sorry.

As for the nuclear waste in the atmosphere, tens of micrograms of inhaled plutonium can cause cancer. So I would not want the stuff in the atmosphere.

 

[russ_watters]

Sure, but to shoot it off into space, you are not going to have such a heavy duty containment vessle. Or you will have so little waste for so much payload it just is not practical.

I agree that the economics make it unlikely for the time being, but there is no technical reason why it isn't feasible(I did say that I didn't think it would happen in my long post - and that is the reason why). That's my main point. But any alternative is going to require some major costs.

And remember - we've already spent $6.4 billion on the Yucca mountains project with nothing to show for it (except, of course, that our nuclear waste has remained safe and secure for those 20 years). Regardless of what the solutions to all these problems are, the cost will almost certainly reach into the trillions.

I think the risk of that stuff getting into a water system is huge. 1 major accident could affect millions and destroy ecosystems.

That isn't risk. Risk is the effect of the event weighed against the likelihood of the event happening. You're making the same mistake that millions of lottery losers make by only considering the event and not weighing the actual risk. When was the last time you were in a plane? There is a risk of death with flying, you know... How about when you drove in a car last?

Tell me what you think the likelihood of such an accident is and then we can evaluate the actual risk. We'll then compare it to other risks, such as a million deaths due to air pollution over 50 years (probability: 1:1).

Space is not a trash can, sorry.

Why not?? Just saying no is not an argument.

As for the nuclear waste in the atmosphere, tens of micrograms of inhaled plutonium can cause cancer. So I would not want the stuff in the atmosphere.

Take the quantity of plutonium we have and divide it by the volume of the atmosphere and you tell me if it would be possible to inhale 10 micrograms of it even if we dispersed all of our plutonium into the atmosphere...

Cyrus, yours is a far more dangerous type of ignorance than Azael - Azael is speculating, but trying to learn: you are assuming and avoiding learning.

 

[Cyrus]

Take the quantity of plutonium we have and divide it by the volume of the atmosphere and you tell me if it would be possible to inhale 10 micrograms of it even if we dispersed all of our plutonium into the atmosphere...

Well, you are assuming that all that nuclear material goes all over the atmosphere. What if something happens just shortly after launch. That will spread out mostly over the launch pad/local area. Not over the entire atmosphere. So now you have a problem that is localized, in significant concentrations.

Why not?? Just saying no is not an argument.

Because I believe that we as a nation are horribly wasteful. We use more power than any other nation, and we waste more than any other nation. And I don't think that gives us the right nor anyone else the right to go around trashing the place. I believe in giving back what you take from the land. Not to metion the amount of air pollution it would cost to lanuch rockets 24-7 to send all our trash into space. What a waste of money that would be.

Cyrus, yours is a far more dangerous type of ignorance than Azael - Azael is speculating, but trying to learn: you are assuming and avoiding learning.

No, I am willing to learn. But I am not willing to be force fed that all is well and safe with this stuff just because you say it is. If it were so safe, why did we put it under a mountain, in leak proof containers that should last 100,000 years? Now you want to say it’s ok to shoot the stuff into space despite the fact that something might go wrong along the way? They don’t even allow transport of that stuff through major cities. I’m sorry, I am not buying your argument. I just don’t see any safety in what you propose.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I voted yes.
I would have to read up more in Fusion but I think moving in that direction would be good as well as eventually using primarily renewables where possible. I wouldn't agree with phasing it out right now though.

I read once about some manner of transmuting radioactive waste into materials much easier to deal with. I wasn't quite sure if it was a good article or not though. Also I believe that IFRs are supposed to reduce the half life of the waste dramatically. They're also able to utilize materials that are not a threat in regards to proliferation if I remember correctly.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Because I believe that we as a nation are horribly wastefull. We use more power than any other nation, and we waste more than any other nation. And I don't think that gives us the right nor anyone else the right to go around trashing the place. I believe in giving back what you take from the land.

And what exactly does this have to do with whether or not it's ok to dump waste into space?

 

[Cyrus]

Its the dangers of getting it into space that worries me. Space is supposed to be something we explore, not pollute.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, you are assuming that all that nuclear material goes all over the atmosphere.

Actually, I was using your assumption from a previous post: "you spray nuclear waste all over the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth." But we can do others...

What if something happens just shortly after launch.

Ok...

That will spread out mostly over the launch pad/local area. Not over the entire atmosphere.

Will it? How? The containers that are being planned for transporting waste to the Yucca Mountains could easily withstand the destruction of the launch vehicle. Setting that aside (lets assume one gets hit by a meteor seconds after launch :uhh: - there is a calculable probability of that happening)...

So now you have a problem that is localized, in significant concentrations.

Yes, localized, in significant concentrations, over the atlantic ocean. Still not much of a problem.

Because I believe that we as a nation are horribly wasteful. We use more power than any other nation, and we waste more than any other nation.

True or not, what does that have to do with using space as a dumping-ground?

And I don't think that gives us the right nor anyone else the right to go around trashing the place. I believe in giving back what you take from the land.

"trashing the place"? Space? Huh? We're talking about space here, Cyrus: How could anything we throw at our solar system have any impact we could possibly care about? We could use Mars as a dumping-ground for all I care, but if it bothers you, we could also use the Sun. We wouldn't even be able to measure the impact it would have, much less see it.

Not to metion the amount of air pollution it would cost to lanuch rockets 24-7 to send all our trash into space.

Calculate for me how many launches and how much pollution we're talking about.

Also, I already said economics are an issue - but just having to do a launch a day for 10 years (guess) isn't an insurmountable technical hurdle.

No, I am willing to learn. But I am not willing to be force fed that all is well and safe with this stuff just because you say it is.

Cyrus, at the moment you're just pulling crap out of the air.

If it were so safe, why did we put it under a mountain, in leak proof containers that should last 100,000 years?

We haven't even broken ground on the Yucca site, but the reason the permanent storage is currently being studied is because people are ignorant and afraid.

When I say nuclear power is safe, what I am referring to is the fact that no one in the United States not connected with its production has ever died from it. Contrast that with fossil fuels, which kill ~20,000 in the US alone every year.

Now you want to say it’s ok to shoot the stuff into space despite the fact that something might go wrong along the way?

Absolutely. Take an honest look at the risk, Cyrus - don't just base your opinion on fear.

They don’t even allow transport of that stuff through major cities.

We wouldn't be launching it from or near cities. Not a relevant concern.

I’m sorry, I am not buying your argument. I just don’t see any safety in what you propose.

Clearly. But that is because you aren't actually weighing any risks, you are simply reacting to your own fears.

Cyrus, there is a real risk that an asteroid the size of Texas will hit the Earth next month. Does that risk keep you up at night? How much money should we spend to mitigate that risk?

 

[chroot]

So now you have a problem that is localized, in significant concentrations.

Wait, wouldn't a localized problem be better than a global problem? You seem to switch sides at will.

I have to agree that sending our nuclear waste into our space is not a very sensible option. My research indicates that there are 441 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, each of which produces about 25-30 tons of high-level waste per year. While this waste is relatively small -- only 3 cubic meters per year -- it is very heavy.

The space shuttle orbiter weighs about 100 tons at launch (and it only goes to LEO), and the Saturn V's best payload estimate was only about 52 tons to the moon. This means you'd have to launch the equivalent of a space-shuttle-sized rocket vehicles every other day just to keep up with the job, if not more.

While I dispute that the air pollution from such launches would be very significant, it would certainly be a very expensive operation.

I'd still put my money on transmutation technology. At some point it will become economical, and research in it will accelerate.

- Warren

 

[chroot]

Its the dangers of getting it into space that worries me. Space is supposed to be something we explore, not pollute.

Would you be opposed to dumping nuclear waste into the Sun? If so, why?

- Warren

 

[Cyrus]

No, not at all. As long as you can tell me with 99.9% certainty that that rocket ant going to come down into a city or a water source because of some sort of a fluke in the deisgn, (sorta like NASA mixing up units and crashing on mars), or that they won't make stupid moves because of time constraints and pressures, (sorta like NASA challenger) when dealing with dangerous materials. As you said, one launch every other day, would be a daunting strain on NASA to keep up. Not to mention, all those rockets are one time uses. And this is something that we will have to pay for, forever.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding your fears about transportation, here is some interesting reading:

About twenty million packages of all sizes containing radioactive materials are routinely transported worldwide annually on public roads, railways and ships.

These use robust and secure containers. At sea, they are generally carried in purpose-built ships.

Since 1971 there have been more than 20 000 shipments of spent fuel and high-level wastes (over 50 000 tonnes) over more than 30 million kilometres.

There has never been any accident in which a container with highly radioactive material has been breached, or has leaked.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip51.htm

 

[russ_watters]

I have to agree that sending our nuclear waste into our space is not a very sensible option.

Just to be clear, I want to restate that I agree - mostly for economic reasons. Ie.

My research indicates that there are 441 nuclear reactors in operation worldwide, each of which produces about 25-30 tons of high-level waste per year. While this waste is relatively small -- only 3 cubic meters per year -- it is very heavy.

I also read that the US has 52,000 tons in storage now that would also need to be dealt with.

The space shuttle orbiter weighs about 100 tons at launch (and it only goes to LEO), and the Saturn V's best payload estimate was only about 52 tons to the moon. This means you'd have to launch the equivalent of a space-shuttle-sized rocket vehicles every other day just to keep up with the job, if not more.

Technically possible, but yes - cost prohibitive. Now if that "Orion" thing ever happens... but I won't go off speculating on when/if that would be possible.

I'd still put my money on transmutation technology. At some point it will become economical, and research in it will accelerate.

There is a lot of crackpottery floating around about transmutation at the moment, which is why I'm heasitant to speculate about it - but I'm an optomist and I'd never bet against technology. In 50 years, it may well be a good option.

 

[russ_watters]

As long as you can tell me with 99.9% certainty that that rocket ant going to come down into a city or a water source because of some sort of a fluke in the deisgn, (sorta like NASA mixing up units and crashing on mars), or that they won't make stupid moves because of time constraints and pressures, (sorta like NASA challenger) when dealing with dangerous materials.

99.9%? 1 in a thousand? That's it? Heck, why are we arguing - we're already there?

NASA has launched roughly 3,000 rockets from Cape Kennedy alone in the past 50 years and not one has ever "come down into a city or water source" (virtually all failures have ended up in the Atlantic - that's why we launch them from the Cape). So that's 1 in 3,000 and counting.

http://www.spaceline.org/statistics/50-years.html

1 in a thousand is several orders of magnitude off what the actual likelihood of some of the scenarios you are describing is.

As you said, one launch every other day, would be a daunting strain on NASA to keep up. Not to mention, all those rockets are one time uses. And this is something that we will have to pay for, forever.

Agreed - so then we digress. Back to the point about doing for the next 50 years what we've done for the past 50: Nothing. What's wrong with it?

 

[Cyrus]

Another point. Don't those rockets send stuff into Earth orbit. Wouldn't you need a MUCH bigger rocket to send something to the sun? The satern V was used to go to the moon. I would think something at least as big would be needed for the sun, which is further, unless its easier to go to the sun.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Another point. Don't those rockets send stuff into Earth orbit. Wouldn't you need a MUCH bigger rocket to send something to the sun? The satern V was used to go to the moon. I would think something at least as big would be needed for the sun, which is further, unless its easier to go to the sun.

It would need to be able take a very heavy cargo outside Earth orbit. That in and of itself will take quite a bit as Chroot pointed out. Once to that point though I don't think it would take much more. Just some manuevering thrusters. Set it on a path towards the sun, probably spiralling inward to take advantage of what would more or less be a natural path. That is natural as in it will continue of it's own accord without need for any fuel. It's definitely not a very economic option at this point in time but I really don't think it would take much more to get it on it's way to the sun. Russ or Chroot would likely be more qualified to answer.

 

[russ_watters]

It depends on what you want to do with it, but yes, sending something to the sun would probably cut the cargo capacity in half or more. There are, however, lower orbits that are stable enough to park trash for thousands of years.

 

[ComputerGeek]

No Way.

Im not afraid of Nuclear Technology, and I think the US should deploy more plants... I do think that research needs to be put into Thorium based Nuclear power generation as it is more abundant than uranium, and the byproducts are not weponizable.

 

[Cyrus]

There are, however, lower orbits that are stable enough to park trash for thousands of years.

I don't think putting trash into orbit is a very appealing idea either