I’m pretty sure this idea has been considered for disposing of nuclear waste…send it out to space (rhyme yeah).
I’m not sure about the true aspects for it, but considering the common knowledge that the universe is a macrocosmic world with light years and astronomical units as measuresments that disposing of waste into the vastness and abyss of space is a good idea.
Suppose to put all of the nuclear waste and other dangerous/“undiposable” trash on a one-way space shuttle then shoot it towards the sun or out towards Pluto and beyond. Is this possible?
I believe it’s not so much a question of being able to do it (we certainly could with existing technology) - more of economics: there isn’t enough money in the appropriate budgets for sending material into space. Getting something out of the Earth’s gravity well is an expensive business - NASA counts every ounce that goes up there. Launching kilos or tonnes of heavy radioactive waste out of Earth’s gravity is prohibitively expensive.
Well, we can do a quick thought experiment on this:
Consider the mass amount of protest that occurs during “routine” launches of satelites that have a small amount of nuclear fuel in them.
All cost issues aside, would people feel good about sending several tons of radioactive waste up on a regular basis in launch vehicles that are nowhere near 100% safe?
It’s possible, but it’s a dangerous, expensive idea - never mind how much protest there is when a satellite with nuclear fuel is launched, just look at how wary people are about transporting nuclear waste by train or road (regardless of the precautions taken).
I heard it suggested somewhere (I think it was Larry Niven, but he may not have originated it) that we drop it into plate subduction zones and let it return to the earth’s mantle.
I was in Florida during that Cassini launch a few years ago (word of advice: don’t try to photograph a night launch with a disposable camera - I should have planned better) and I ran into some heightened security around the base because of the protestors. They sent me down the road to Patrick AFB instead.
Anyhoo, if there was hassle over some 60 lbs of Plutonium, I can imagine how much hassle there would be trying to spacelift a few tons of waste. Much better to bury it at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Despite all the panic-stricken rhetoric about trucks carrying nuclear waste through major cities, it remains the single best option for disposal.
Personally, I’d rather see breeder reactors or reprocessing stations built, but you’d never get those approved. We’ll just have to wait a few decades for controlled fusion.
<hijack>I have heard that while nuclear waste remains redioactive for thousands of years, it reaches the level of natural ore after about 600 years. Is this true?
</hijack>
If you’re really interested in the topic of nuclear waste disposal, I suggest checking out last month’s issue of Discover magazine. They discuss the pros and cons of Yucca Mountain, shipments of nuclear waste, etc.
Anyway if I remember correctly, N9IWP, there are different types of nuclear waste. I believe the level of radioactive danger from a specific substance has a correlation with its half-life. Some radioactive substances have half-lives of millions of years, while others are much briefer. Substances with short half-lives are the most dangerous and most likely to cause cellular damage in humans.
The cost. Its very bery expensive to send anything into space, much less 20 000 tonnes of radioactive wastes.
Its unsafe. What if the shuttle explodes? 20 000t of uranium/plutonium is showered down on Earth, so stays in the atomosphere. Everyone dies. Well maybe not everyone.
Maybe it not waste. Think about it. During the industrial revolution Gasoline was thrown into rivers or disposed of because it was useless to them. Now we run our engines and pollute the atomsphere with it. What if after we send all the waste out, someone figures out that you can use it to produce energy? :smack:
Wearia