/sci/ - Science & Math

it's true tho

>>7380940
Why not just go full nuclear for fucks sake and just store that shit until we can shoot it all into the sun.

>>7380940
>global temperature rises by 0.1C in 100 years in accordance with global heating and cooling cycles
>muh global warming

i want reddit to die

>>7380947
>shooting perfectly fine material for dirty bombs into the sun
What's next? Quiting nuclear weapons? Stop using uranium ammunition?

>>7380940
>global warming killing trees
hwat

>>7380940
I actually like looking at windfarms.

>>7380947
You can built nuclear plants in some desert if you like, but if there meltdown where I live, several million people are fucked.

Also: Nuclear plants produce so much nuclear waste it would be unaffordable to shoot it in the sun, at least in the forseeable future.

>>7380949
>this is what /pol/ actually believes

>>7380955
If they melt down in the desert the winds will fuck over even more people

>>7380955
>You can built nuclear plants in some desert if you like
No, you can not. They need a lot of water.

>>7380965
build it in an oasis :3

>>7380955
>but if there meltdown where I live, several million people are fucked.
What exactly do you think happens during a meltdown?

>Nuclear plants produce so much nuclear waste
And... this is how I know you have no idea what you're talking about.

>>7380970
>Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced 74,258 metric tons of used nuclear fuel.

source: http://www.nei.org/Knowledge-Center/Nuclear-Statistics/On-Site-Storage-of-Nuclear-Waste

Falcon 9 Payload:
GTO v1.1: 4,850 kg

>>7380975
That's a rocket every two years

>>7380983
>74,258 metric TONS
>4,850 KG

>>7380983
Do you know the difference between a kilogram and a metric ton?

>>7380988
>>7380989
oh, I misread that

>>7380947
great idea, but what if you get a Challenger/Columbia situation with a big fat payload of nuclear waste?

It'd be much worse than typical fall-out

>>7381000
Now challenger I can understand, but Columbia? Wouldn't it be pretty irresponsible and weird to fly a shuttle full of nuclear waste INTO the atmosphere?

>>7381010
I was being general

Trying to illustrate that unforeseen circumstances have drastic consequences when you are moving a high speed in the atmosphere.

The failure rate for launches is way too high for me to be comfortable with shooting nuclear waste away from earth.

We'd be better off developing breeder reactors anyway and just turning the waste into more energy and valuable isotopes

>>7380947
>>7381000

Glorious sun plan seem risky, but couldn't we just drill a deep deep hole and dump it into the mantle? It's heavy stuff so it should sink right?
Are we really afraid of getting literal blow back and manufacture some embarrassing radioactive volcano??

>>7381020
More like poisoning groundwater

Could just seal nuclear waste in concrete and drop it into the sea

>>7381026
Moronic.

If I were in charge, you'd be in front of a firing squad. We need to get these genes predisposed to such myopic thought processes out of circulation.

>>7381024
If someone has dug their well down to the mantle beside a 'radioactive disposal memory hole' just to get their drink they kinda deserve to get poisoned.

>>7381020
I really don't know enough about geology but common sense tells me, that digging a hole big enough to drop loads of waste through it would result in a big sea of lava