Is it feasible to send all the radioactive waste to the sun?
Topic: Space case storage containers
June 16, 2019 / By Acacia Question:
Could the vessel be made explosion proof in the event of an accident?What would be the effect on the sun?
Best Answers: Is it feasible to send all the radioactive waste to the sun?
Sydney | 8 days ago
Raidoactive nuclear waste is very unstable and very good at contaminating things.
We can't even build an immobile faculity that will contain the stuff.
At the faculity in Hanford, WA 500,000 Gallons of High-Level Nuclear Waste have leaked into the soil, from there to the Columbia River and from their on into the Pacific Ocean.
Other storage sites that have lead to extensive soil and water contamination include Rernald in OH, Idaho Falls in ID, Lawrence Livermore in CA, Oak Ridge in TN, Rocky Flats in CO, and Savannah River in SC.
At a LOW-Level site in Maxey Flats, they burried the crap in shale, no containers, and assured the public that the Plutonium stored there would take 24,000 years to get even an inch. Within ten years the plutonium had gotten two miles.
Trusting these same people to strap it on a rocket and light the fuse, I think, would be pretty foolish.
"Technichal Feasability" means that it is possible to strap this stuff to a rocket and there's a chance it might not backfire.
Even a basic understanding of Chaos Theory makes this subject pretty scary for most people. I just giggle and hope they try.
Get a bunch of beaurocrats togeather to assure everyone that this ad-hock Doomsday Machine is absolutly safe, have it all built by the company willing to do it for the cheapest price, pop some popcorn and turn on the TV. That's entertainment.
The NASA Shuttle failure rate is a miniscule 2%.
But in this case, we're not talking about 2% chance of eight people dieing. We're talking about a 2% chance of raining death all over the world.
Come to think of it, I think you should send this to your elected officials. I bet they'd dig it.
Can you even imagine what an observing alien civilization would think?
Alien 1: Dude! C'mere, check this out!
Alien 2: Are they.. they're straping used nuclear material to one of those archaic space machines?
Alien 1: They totally are!
Alien 2: OMG!!! Haha! Turn on the recorder!
👍 164 | 👎 8
Did you like the answer? Is it feasible to send all the radioactive waste to the sun?
Share with your friends
We found more questions related to the topic: Space case storage containers
Originally Answered: What are some radioactive waste disposal policies in the U.S?
You might want to look into "molten salt" reactors which offer much safer means of generating electricty than water-cooled reactors and disposing of existing stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel.
"The notable features of this reactor are:
Does not produce weapons grade plutonium
Has inherent non-proliferation features
Thousands of years of energy
Simplified fuel cycle (no fuel elements nor reprocessing required)
Its wastes are simpler and less toxic than current nuclear wastes
Only hundreds of years of storage versus thousands for the current wastes
Can completely destroy military plutonium
Can burn the existing wastes (spent fuel)!
Higher thermal efficiencies (operates at a "Red Heat"; ~700° C [1,260° F])"
Another process being considered is 'plasma-gasification" which employs a method of using intense heat to break down wastes including nuclear into their primary elements....converting that into electricity and little residual waste which would be non-radioactive. There are some problems with the metallurgy of existing designs though.
No. The anti nuclear protesters tried to stop the Cassini launch because it had a few pounds of plutonium in its nuclear generators. They would never allow launching thousands of pounds of high level waste.
Also, believe it or not, it takes MORE rocket power to reach our Sun than it does to send stuff completely out of the solar system. You could send it to ANOTHER star more easily, if you didn't care how long the trip took. Or you could just send it to the Moon or Jupiter.
If you did send it into the Sun, the Sun wouldn't even notice it, so that at least is no problem.
👍 60 | 👎 1
Technically, yes. Practically, no. Takes about $10,000 per pound just to get something in low earth orbit via the US space shuttle. Probably double or triple that to get one pound of garbage to the sun. Effect on the sun? About what spitting in the ocean would do to sea levels here on earth.
👍 53 | 👎 -6
No they should take it all out west in one place. at the Savannah river plant in South Carolina the nucleor waste is leaching down into the water aquifers from the swamps there where its gotten into.that millions of people get there water from .it will come back up into the streams and rivers and then the ocean those South Carolinians or real stupid.they know it but don't care in the least.that stuff lasts for hundreds of thousands of years.and will be able to kill someone that far into the future, but humans don't think past there noses.a microscopic piece of this waste can give a person cancer and South Carolinians just say du? what?hurt me? its just waste from that plant. the government knows what there doing. Ha Ha Ha damn what stupid hicks.
👍 46 | 👎 -13
Yes and no.
Techniclly feasible of course
Politically feasible not at all too many loonies with picket signs
Financially feasible probably, couriously for the same reason its politically unfeasible. The loonies may block all other routes
👍 39 | 👎 -20
No, it's very hard to hit the sun. You'd have to bring the vessel to almost a dead stop (compared to the earth's orbital motion) to get it to fall into the sun.
👍 32 | 👎 -27
It's a great idea - except if there was a mishap on launch. If the main stage rocket expolded during takeoff or before it left the atmosphere, it would be like setting off a 'dirty bomb' in the atmosphere.
👍 25 | 👎 -34
Originally Answered: What if we shipped all of our nuclear waste, garbage and industrial waste to Antarctica?
Nope. It is too expensive. There are international treaties against it. And there is no reason to ship these things to the south pole because there are plenty of safe ways to handle it in the countries where they are generated. Those things that are politically unpopular aren't going to get any more popular to support the idea of sending them to Antarctica.