/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6008547

Didn't someone ask this before?


And:

What about eruptions?

If you want second chernobil you can do it.

>>6008547
just throw it into the sun, it would work much better

the volcano would vaporize some of the material and that would make people grow multiple dicks on each arm

why not just pour it down the sink?

>>6008582

This, we should just fire all our crap into the sun or if we can't manage that just at least into space, a mass driver would be very useful here

>>6008622
Whoops your delivery system broke in the upper atmosphere looks like everyone has cancer sry guise

wouldn't putting it in the Marianas trench or any plate/fault work? It's just putting it back to where it came from, right?

>>6008547
1. Getting it there is half the hazard.
2. The stuff inside of volcanos? Its busy coming out. Nuclear isotopes dont stop being radioactive just because you melt them. Now you have a volcano that erupts with hot lava nuclear waste. Awesome.

>>6008646
>Let's irradiate the ocean sounds like fun.

>>6008641

It would be amusing if it were to burn up in the atmosphere and sprinkle radioactive dust around the world

Drill a hole to the center of the earth and dump it all there.

What about siberia/sahara, seriously who gives a shit about those places?

The waste won't be destroyed. The volcano would eventually erupt and end up spewing all the nuclear waste into the sky like some kind of ultra dirty bomb.

The best solution involving magma would be if you could somehow inject it into a cooling pluton without making it erupt. If you could reach those depths though you might as well just bury it.

damnit...just googled this. Apparently "volcanoes aren't hot enough" to melt the radioactive waste, or the cases they're in

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-02/can-we-dispose-radioactive-waste-volcanoes

I myself think the main problem is that it comes OUT of the volcano. we need to put it wherever it goes IN

>>6008641
which is why we need a space elevator

>Put nuclear reactors in space with graphene cables to transmit energy to earth
>once fuel is spent use boosters attached to reactor to fling it out into space
>else anything else goes wrong you fire boosters

>>6008689
ummm
we have a very large place to store it in the united states.
For some reason our government continues to hinder anything to do with nuclear energy.

you could just put insanely large solar panels out there

we should put all that stuff on the moon. problem solved

>>6008881
>>not using abundant solar energy from space instead.

>>6008934
to much risk for the rocket to explode.
If it does in the stratosphere the whole world would be fucked.
Good argument, but maybe in 50years.

>>6008983
>>6008934
no no no
this shit is heavy
just bury it in the mountains
we have plenty of them.

>>6008991
nope, its not an eternal solution. We can not keep dumping stuff in the freakin mountains.
We should
a) get rid of them (space )
b) try to do something useful with it.

>>6009005
we have a lot more mountains than we do uranium
and yes we should do something useful with it, but we won't because of >>>/pol/

>>6009005
>We can not keep dumping stuff in the freakin mountains.
We can. Nuclear fuel is high density fuel and the actinides are high density mass too. Meaning that the actual volumes needed are quite small.

Also, we'll be able to reprocess most spent fuel in a decade or two.

>>6009005
>We can not keep dumping stuff in the freakin mountains.
Idk we have a lot of mountains and Yucca alone has done a lot for the country.
>try to do something useful with it.
Its a very good weapon

>>6009010
Yucca isn't a very good place for it. The Appalachian mountains are, but politicians don't want the waste there.

>>6009013
what what what?
There's a lot more people near the Appalachians
There's plenty of mountains out west that are completely deserted.
Also we've already built a facility out west

>>6009009
okay, we can maybe dump it in the mountains.
But what if terrorist gained acces to them.. Should we guard the mountains then so they cant? Keeping nuclear junk on earth is just not a good idea if we still have this society where everone is against eachother #Coldwar

>>6009026
it's really heavy shit.
Also yes it will be in a fortified area.
I would say not everyone is against everyone, but suddenly Syria...

>>6009031
the moment russia does something wrong, Amerika strikes on it.
We still have to many religions. We can not live together Muslims, jews and Christians..
We still have Africa who is just "a starving nigger" compared to all the fat muricans.
The world is fucked, will stay fucked for the time we stay alive, and will eventually get better.

>>6008547
Because it's not waste.
It's fuel.

Right now we're using simple fission reactors because it's cheaper.
When uranium deposits run out, we will start using those "wastes" in fast breeders (and also extracting uranium from seawater but that's another thing).
They are worth tens of thousand of years of energy consumption.

>>6009034
>>>/pol/

Why don't we just get the eagles to fly it to the top of Mount Everest.

>>6008646

It's rock grinding on rock yo, it's not like a hole that you can just slip it down. It doesn't even move constantly.

Let's just take our uranium and push it somewhere else.

I don't know much about radioactive waste, but is there a way to convert it into something non harmful by bombarding it with something else?

>tfw people are afraid of anything with the word "nuclear in it"

Its no coincidence that as nuclear technology was rising, divorce rates have gone up.

New reactors can burn dat shit.
http://inhabitat.com/new-nuclear-reactors-may-almost-completely-destroy-atomic-waste/

>>6009344
how do you "burn" something radioactive? I don't understand how the radioactive part just goes away ,or is at least reduced by a large amount.

Restating some of the more clear-headed posts ...

Volcanos are outputs. You would logically want to dump things into Inputs. Those deep underwater areas where one plate is being subducted under another are inputs. That might work.

Why don't we just bolt some metal tanks together, fill them up with radioactive waste, and forget about them?

>>6009350
You change one isotope into another. Wastes with long half-lives are converted to wastes with short half lives.

I also work with bacteria that breathe uranium. They don't change the radioactivity but they change the oxidation state so that the uranium doesn't travel in the groundwater.

>>6009394
because we are quickly reminded of their existence when they start to leak and radiation levels near them suddenly spike

>>6009394
>metal tanks ... fill them up with radioactive waste, and forget about them
one word: transmutation
look it up, pleb

>>6008547
Because it's not a big problem. It's an invented problem.

>>6009360
>that opinion
>clear headed
Radioactive material are available in a limited quantity, and therefore very precious.
Getting rid of them definitively is simply retardation.

>>6008982
What exactly is the flaw to this? I know it would be expensive and stuff, but is there some other reason? (I'm not really from /sci/)

>>6009576
Nothing, it's a good idea in the long term. One satellite could power a whole big city.
The issues are
1- the geostationary orbit is already almost saturated
2- getting the power there. A good part would be absorbed in the atmosphere
You could use a laser, but getting powerful lasers on a satellite is forbidden by.

Sorry, I meant by international conventions.