[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 25 KB, 500x333, sol17-thumb-600x400.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2420104 No.2420104 [Reply] [Original]

Nuclear waste. Problem is, it lasts a long ass time. Would sending it to the sun in a crew-less pod be a solution? Why or why not? I always imagined it would..

>> No.2420116

Sure, just as soon as we have a way to launch it into space that's cheaper than... every other option.

>> No.2420126

>>2420116
What other options are there?

>> No.2420132

>>2420104
>why not

Because things that go from earth to space have a tendency to explode every now and then.
The "just shoot it into space" concept was considered for a while, IIRC, but then abandoned because nobody wanted fallout on their lawn.

>> No.2420153

>>2420132
Oh, very true. I hadn't thought of that for some reason. That'd be pretty disastrous.

>> No.2420374

It does have a very, very long shelf life... but people underestimate just how much unused space there is in the world. While it indeed might be easier or cheaper to dispose of it in a place it shouldn't be, a place like Yucca mountain, if they ever finish it, could store something like 100 million pounds of the stuff.

>> No.2420413

Why don't we just breed a human sub species that eats waste and shits, oh I don't know, things we like, such as diamonds, or gold, or graphene, or BlackBerries.

>> No.2420417

>>2420374
What would the adverse effects of this though? I'm for nuclear power, I just wish the waste was properly contained, rather than the alternatives we have today.

>> No.2420427

>>2420413
I lol'd. We have that, it's name is Steve Jobs. However, replace the BlackBerry with a whyPod.

>> No.2420452

>>2420417
>the alternatives we have today.
Are you trying to say that you don't like DU ammunition? Get rid of our waste by shooting it in shithole countries. It's their problem now. What could possibly go wrong?

>> No.2420453

>>2420374
Exactly.

I've also heard tell that they deposit current nuclear waste under the ocean. Seems like an ideal hiding place for radioactive material.

>> No.2420468

>>2420417
>not for nuclear power

WTF is this shit? Nuclear power is the next big thing to hit energy. It produces massive amounts of energy in such a little area. Much better than chemical energy, and less pollutant.

>> No.2420479

>>2420453
Where have you heard this? I was under the impression that most nuclear waste is stored in underground facilities, with EPA regulations demanding that they are built not to leak, and built nowhere near groundwater sources.

>> No.2420484
File: 5 KB, 207x243, hovind.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2420484

We can change the rate of decay by subjecting it to different conditions

>> No.2420487

>>2420468
Can you read? I said I was for, you illiterate, inbred Neanderthal.

>> No.2420509

There is an approximate 1/100 chance that a spaceship will explode whilst piercing the atmosphere.

If it even happens once highly radioactive material will be spread amongst our atmosphere.

We ded.

>> No.2420520

>>2420452
Eh, I'd appreciate a more responsible way.
One could say the same about putting it in the ocean. "Fuck it, it's the fishes problem."
Which would be just as unintelligent and careless as tossing it towards other countries.

>> No.2420517

>>2420479
Not groundwater, but oceanic water.
http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/sea-based.htm

>> No.2420533

>>2420509
Graphene rocket, and a tarp made of graphene to catch fallen waste (if any).

>> No.2420551

>>2420533
How much would that cost though?

>> No.2420553
File: 12 KB, 243x349, 1294983991728.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2420553

>>2420533
>graphene tarp

>> No.2420560

But nuclear waste isn't that hard to store on Earth.

>> No.2420574
File: 17 KB, 400x225, 1-gallon-enema-and-a-gaping-asshole.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2420574

>>2420560
Put it all in here, no?

>> No.2420575

>>2420560
Yea, America's a pretty big land mass.

>> No.2420584

>>2420575
>implying us americunts aren't already unhealthy enough

>> No.2420587

>>2420116
This.

There's a concept called "delta V"; essentially, the change in velocity needed to get from one place to another. Delta V is necessary when you're considering space because small objects tend to accelerate around large objects and begin orbit (gravity, derp).

The delta V to escape Earth's atmosphere is already expensive. Then you would need _much_ more delta V to get the pod into the sun rather than into orbit.

In short, no.

>> No.2420611

>>2420520
lol. My post wasn't meant to be taken seriously.

And I don't think ocean storage is a viable alternative either. Personally I think that nuclear fission is a bad idea, since there is no way to treat the waste. I'm much more fond of wave / tidal turbines and geothermal myself (fuck solar panels and their toxic inefficiency). Oh, and more side-river turbines. Not as efficient as dams, but hurr durr the little fishies can fuck in peace now.

>> No.2420635

Let's wrap everything up in a garbage bag made of graphene.

>> No.2420655

>>2420587
Well, I was thinking, and this is OP here, ya know how if something in space gets a push, assuming no gravity effects it, all it would need is a slight rocket propelled push and in time wouldn't it reach the sun? In a LONG time, no doubt, but wouldn't it? All you'd have to do was pay for it to get into space initially and for the little rocket push.

>> No.2420669

>>2420611
Oh, I know. I didn't take it seriously. But having just spent some time on /b/ I instinctively replied by trying to defuse a potential troll. :p

>> No.2420673

SPACE ELEVATOR

/thread

>> No.2420677
File: 45 KB, 325x248, nuclear power, not ronery china.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2420677

Isn't there an emerging nuclear technology that basically uses nuclear waste as fuel?

>> No.2420683

>>2420673
Ingenious.

>> No.2420692

>>2420677
I haven't heard anything like it.
Got any sauce? I'm interested.

>> No.2420701

>>2420677
Well you can recycle nuclear fuel, and there is a process being developed to basically recycle it better.

>> No.2420702

>>2420655
>a LONG time
If anything, you'd think we would want the waste to get there as quickly as possible. It would be ironic if we sent this shit up and the sun goes 'LOL fuck you, Earth' and hits the capsule with a coronal ejection storm

>> No.2420712

its too fucking heavy. There is a shit-ton of nuclear waste out there.

>> No.2420713

>>2420692
Fourth generation reactors. The technology's been around for a decade or slightly less, but the US hasn't built reactors in that time frame...

>> No.2420717
File: 40 KB, 591x591, Bill_Gates2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2420717

>>2420692
I heard it from a TED talk by Bill Gates.

http://boingboing.net/2010/02/12/highlights-from-ted-2.html

>So Gates is looking at nuclear as the most likely miracle. "A molecule of uranium has a million times more energy than a molecule of coal." He and Nathan "Mosquito Zapper" Myrhvold are backing a nuclear approach. It's called Terrapower, and it's different from a standard nuclear reactor. Instead of burning the 1% of uranium-235 found in natural uranium, this reactor burns the other 99%, called uranium-238. You can use all the leftover waste from today's reactors as fuel.

>> No.2420729

>>2420717
Fuck yeah! I want to take nuclear reactor advice from a guy called "Mosquito Zapper".

>> No.2420770

>>2420126
Space Elevator. No really.

But we don't have the materials to make one yet.

>>2420374
FUN FACT: They're trying to make warning signs for Yucca Mountain that can withstand the test of time, and can be understood (hopefully thousands of years from now. Using symbols and such.

Unfortunately they've got to make sure future people don't misinterpret it as some kind of defence against treasure. Because, admit it. People see a sign in the middle of nowhere that says 'KEEP OUT, SERIOUSLY' they'll think there must be treasure inside. Happened with the Egyptians.

>> No.2420781

>>2420702
Haha this is true. Nuclear-UV shitstorm? Ohmy.

>> No.2420799

>>2420770
Damn, half way through your post I was prepared to bring up ancient texts being interpreted and you go and beat me to the punch with Egyptians. Haha.

>> No.2420820

>>2420799
Yeah. It's a very funny human quirk isn't it. If you put a guillotine outside every house with a sign that said 'Do not put your head in this and pull the rope' nobody would ever need to buy a hat again.

I'm reminded of that Derren Brown episode where he convinced a woman to electrocute a kitten live, simply by telling her not to.

She didn't actually do it, but she thought she had. She was in tears. It was absolutely gripping

>> No.2420835

With our current levels of technology, it is not economically feasible to send large quantities of anything into space. It's hella expensive. I think there are good ways to store it on Earth, but if we do decide that shooting it into space is the best thing to do with it, that is a long way off.

>> No.2420834

>>2420820
Think it'd be on YouTube? I'll definitely lurk for it later tonight.

>> No.2420847

>>2420587
>The delta V to escape Earth's atmosphere is already expensive.
Might sound nitpicky, but escaping earth's atmosphere doesn't take shit. It's getting into orbit that takes the big delta-v (7 km/s). Escaping earth's gravity takes takes 11 km/s. Shooting something into the sun takes 41 km/s.

>> No.2420848

>>2420834
I actually started looking for it. Whole episode is on there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDwe_PNrACI

It's Channel 4 though, so I don't know if non-Brits can watch it.

>> No.2420908

>>2420848
Unfortunately the content is blocked. Got any keywords I can lurk USA YouTube with?

>> No.2420932

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceaaSsnTiKc

To save firing up a proxy

>> No.2420967

can't believe no ones said anything about this yet, but need to remove radio active waste would be removed if we got rid of the dumb parts of non-proliferation, and started using thorium reactors. They can be run off current nuclear waste, and 87% of the waste from the thorium reactor would not be dangers after about 10 yeas

>> No.2421088

OP here again. Thanks for all the informative posts. Got more than I expected.

>> No.2421108

>>2421088
Protip: all non-graphene related ideas can be safely disregarded.

>> No.2421117

>>2420908
Just 'Derren Brown' and 'Kitten' would do, I think.

>> No.2421132

To honestly justify sending waste to the sun, we need a space elevator.

>> No.2421145

>>2420967
Reading up on thorium... why isn't this already being used? Fuck uranium.

>> No.2421158

>>2421145
I'll look it up later, but until then, care to summarize it? How long is the half life?

>> No.2421189

>>2421145

I think because thorium can't really be used for weapons, so all of the Manhattan project focused on Uranium and Plutonium. At the end of WWII we had all this research and knowledge about Uranium reactors, we just went with it. There is a lot of thorium out there, but there is plenty of Uranium out there now.

I also think the problem with thorium is that you must first transmute it to ?U233? which means bombarding it with neutrons from.... an existing reactor (or a power hungry proton accelerator that might not have existed in the 40's) which in the first choice means you need a uranium reactor to get the ball rolling, and if you have that, and fuel, why go to thorium.


Anybody please correct me If I've made errors.

>> No.2421260

>>2421158
delivared

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=thorium&l=1

>> No.2421288

>>2421260
Thank you sir, for a hearty lol and some knowledgefacts.