4 ms·

This might be a stupid suggestion/question, but maybe it'll become cheap enough to just toss the spent fuel rods into space?

theBobBob 7y ago
This option is brought up alot and while cost is probably one consideration I think that the main problem is for when (not if) one of the launches has a rapid unscheduled disassembly as they call it, and basically become becomes a large dirty bomb.
- bipson 7y ago
  Also, what happens to the stuff we toss into space? People still seem to make the same mistake our ancestors did regarding tossing stuff into the ocean. To be more precise: achieving a velocity high enough to e.g. detonate on the surface of the sun (in particular carrying tons of nuclear waste) won't be cheap for a long time. [1] Stuff we "toss out there" would probably just keep floating in an uncontrolled (in the long run) earth bound orbit and might come back at some point. [1] https://youtu.be/uNS6VKNXY6s https://youtu.be/uNS6VKNXY6s
  - jackweirdy 7y ago
    Lunar orbit seems much more worth investigating than solar orbit
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    Trying to toss radioactive waste into the Sun would be a ridiculous waste of fuel. To do that, you have to cancel out Earth's orbital velocty; that's 30 km/s of ∆v (or execute some very clever gravity assists). What you'd want to do is to shoot it out into an orbit around the Sun that's slightly lower or higher than Earth's. The chance of it somehow returning to Earth is so low that the Sun will go out before it happens. Still, the whole concept is wasteful and dangerous anyway. For one, as others mentioned, a launch failure would mean large-scale contamination on the planet. Two, you can safely store this waste on Earth for many orders of magnitude less money and work. > People still seem to make the same mistake our ancestors did regarding tossing stuff into the ocean. “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” Throwing something out into orbit around the Sun isn't going to be a problem, like, ever.
  - _nalply 7y ago
    I would try to toss if at all right into the Sun.
- jackweirdy 7y ago
  This makes me think of this video of a 1984 demonstration of a freight train deliberately crashing directly into a container of nuclear material https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc
  - Skye 7y ago
    It seems to be a diesel locomotive pulling passenger carriages (almost certainly ones that were obsolete at the time). It's still a pretty impressive way to show how strong they are...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
yvdriess 7y ago
Spent fuel rods aren't the big waste problem. The tons and tons of lightly irradiated materials are (equipment, construction waste, suits etc)
billyhoffman 7y ago
Not a stupid question. It’s a pretty common suggestion. The challenge is that fuel rods are quite heavy and the $$$ costs to launch a kilogram on a path beyond earths orbit are incredibly high, let alone the carbon costs. Launching into space is just not a net positive.
- andromeduck 7y ago
  That and safety/containment in the event of a mishap. I should add also that generally it's not the super high activity waste like the fuel rods or the low activity waste million years half-life stuff that makes things problematic but rather the heaps of intermediate activity waste that's active enough to require special equipment and procedures, too irregular to easily streamline, too long lived to just wait out and too voluminous to just stick it in a very secure container container somewhere. For that, a deep geological repository is mihc safer, simpler and cheaper.
- MertsA 7y ago
  Not to mention, if you want to make sure that the waste won't be left just orbiting in the solar system or irradiating Venus or something then you need to either bring its orbit down into the surface of the sun or accelerate it to the point that it escapes from the solar system entirely. Fun fact, it actually takes less energy to escape solar orbit entirely than it takes to reach the sun.
systemtest 7y ago
Perhaps store them on the dark side of the moon.
- mpweiher 7y ago
  And put our first manned moon-base nearby. What should we call it? Alpha?
arethuza 7y ago
Where in space though - a low orbit will decay and further away just means dramatically increased costs. Far better to just have it in a hole in the ground somewhere geologically inactive. Edit: I'd far rather it be buried than whirling around above my head!
- gnode 7y ago
  It just depends how much you're willing to spend. You could put it in the sun or on a solar system escaping trajectory if you wanted to. Gravitational slingshots can be used to do so with a lower delta-v than naively required. With reusable spacecraft, the cost could conceivably approach that of the propellants required, making such disposal permanent and cost effective. That said, we're still not sure we want to get rid of high level nuclear waste; it's potentially a valuable source of fuel if some reactor technologies are developed.
  - arethuza 7y ago
    Getting to the sun actually requires more energy than leaving the solar system: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/parker-solar-probe-launch-nasa/567197/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/parker-s...
    - gnode 7y ago
      Indeed, although you wouldn't just use 30km/s of delta-v to cancel the Earth's orbit, or 12.3km/s to escape the solar system. The Ulysses probe for instance used a gravitational assist around Jupiter to not only counter Earth's 30km/s orbit, but establish a counter-rotational orbit around the sun. My understanding is the ideal target would depend on the time you wished to launch, and the orbital phase of planets useful for gravity assists.
      - arethuza 7y ago
        Well, if you are going to do that, why not dump it in Jupiter? [NB Not that I would be in favour of that, but seems easier than the other options].
Recurecur 7y ago
A much better idea would be to package it appropriately, and drop it on the subducting side of the mid-Pacific subduction zone. Approximately 1/10,000 as much energy would be involved, and it would be 100% safe.
- askvictor 7y ago
  Is it possible to build such appropriate packaging, given the forces it will be put under before it completely 'goes under'? Also, wouldn't there be a risk of radioactive volcanoes if it doesn't disperse sufficiently (genuine question; not a geologist)
  - antepodius 7y ago
    Pretty sure the inside of the earth's radioactive anyway. Our material's a drop in the bucket. I've heard, for example, that geothermal energy generates nuclear waste (because digging so low digs up radioactive material anyway)
nickik 7y ago
It is not a technical problem. Tossing the fuel into space is just as much a politcal problem as tossing it into an old mine. Technically we have solutions, the problem is politics.

theBobBob 7y ago

This option is brought up alot and while cost is probably one consideration I think that the main problem is for when (not if) one of the launches has a rapid unscheduled disassembly as they call it, and basically become becomes a large dirty bomb.

bipson 7y ago
Also, what happens to the stuff we toss into space? People still seem to make the same mistake our ancestors did regarding tossing stuff into the ocean. To be more precise: achieving a velocity high enough to e.g. detonate on the surface of the sun (in particular carrying tons of nuclear waste) won't be cheap for a long time. [1] Stuff we "toss out there" would probably just keep floating in an uncontrolled (in the long run) earth bound orbit and might come back at some point. [1] https://youtu.be/uNS6VKNXY6s https://youtu.be/uNS6VKNXY6s
- jackweirdy 7y ago
  Lunar orbit seems much more worth investigating than solar orbit
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Trying to toss radioactive waste into the Sun would be a ridiculous waste of fuel. To do that, you have to cancel out Earth's orbital velocty; that's 30 km/s of ∆v (or execute some very clever gravity assists). What you'd want to do is to shoot it out into an orbit around the Sun that's slightly lower or higher than Earth's. The chance of it somehow returning to Earth is so low that the Sun will go out before it happens. Still, the whole concept is wasteful and dangerous anyway. For one, as others mentioned, a launch failure would mean large-scale contamination on the planet. Two, you can safely store this waste on Earth for many orders of magnitude less money and work. > People still seem to make the same mistake our ancestors did regarding tossing stuff into the ocean. “Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.” Throwing something out into orbit around the Sun isn't going to be a problem, like, ever.
- _nalply 7y ago
  I would try to toss if at all right into the Sun.
jackweirdy 7y ago
This makes me think of this video of a 1984 demonstration of a freight train deliberately crashing directly into a container of nuclear material https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY446h4pZdc
- Skye 7y ago
  It seems to be a diesel locomotive pulling passenger carriages (almost certainly ones that were obsolete at the time). It's still a pretty impressive way to show how strong they are...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

yvdriess 7y ago

Spent fuel rods aren't the big waste problem. The tons and tons of lightly irradiated materials are (equipment, construction waste, suits etc)

billyhoffman 7y ago

Not a stupid question. It’s a pretty common suggestion. The challenge is that fuel rods are quite heavy and the $$$ costs to launch a kilogram on a path beyond earths orbit are incredibly high, let alone the carbon costs. Launching into space is just not a net positive.

andromeduck 7y ago
That and safety/containment in the event of a mishap. I should add also that generally it's not the super high activity waste like the fuel rods or the low activity waste million years half-life stuff that makes things problematic but rather the heaps of intermediate activity waste that's active enough to require special equipment and procedures, too irregular to easily streamline, too long lived to just wait out and too voluminous to just stick it in a very secure container container somewhere. For that, a deep geological repository is mihc safer, simpler and cheaper.
MertsA 7y ago
Not to mention, if you want to make sure that the waste won't be left just orbiting in the solar system or irradiating Venus or something then you need to either bring its orbit down into the surface of the sun or accelerate it to the point that it escapes from the solar system entirely. Fun fact, it actually takes less energy to escape solar orbit entirely than it takes to reach the sun.

systemtest 7y ago

Perhaps store them on the dark side of the moon.

mpweiher 7y ago
And put our first manned moon-base nearby. What should we call it? Alpha?

arethuza 7y ago

Where in space though - a low orbit will decay and further away just means dramatically increased costs. Far better to just have it in a hole in the ground somewhere geologically inactive. Edit: I'd far rather it be buried than whirling around above my head!

gnode 7y ago
It just depends how much you're willing to spend. You could put it in the sun or on a solar system escaping trajectory if you wanted to. Gravitational slingshots can be used to do so with a lower delta-v than naively required. With reusable spacecraft, the cost could conceivably approach that of the propellants required, making such disposal permanent and cost effective. That said, we're still not sure we want to get rid of high level nuclear waste; it's potentially a valuable source of fuel if some reactor technologies are developed.
- arethuza 7y ago
  Getting to the sun actually requires more energy than leaving the solar system: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/parker-solar-probe-launch-nasa/567197/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/08/parker-s...
  - gnode 7y ago
    Indeed, although you wouldn't just use 30km/s of delta-v to cancel the Earth's orbit, or 12.3km/s to escape the solar system. The Ulysses probe for instance used a gravitational assist around Jupiter to not only counter Earth's 30km/s orbit, but establish a counter-rotational orbit around the sun. My understanding is the ideal target would depend on the time you wished to launch, and the orbital phase of planets useful for gravity assists.
    - arethuza 7y ago
      Well, if you are going to do that, why not dump it in Jupiter? [NB Not that I would be in favour of that, but seems easier than the other options].

Recurecur 7y ago

A much better idea would be to package it appropriately, and drop it on the subducting side of the mid-Pacific subduction zone. Approximately 1/10,000 as much energy would be involved, and it would be 100% safe.

askvictor 7y ago
Is it possible to build such appropriate packaging, given the forces it will be put under before it completely 'goes under'? Also, wouldn't there be a risk of radioactive volcanoes if it doesn't disperse sufficiently (genuine question; not a geologist)
- antepodius 7y ago
  Pretty sure the inside of the earth's radioactive anyway. Our material's a drop in the bucket. I've heard, for example, that geothermal energy generates nuclear waste (because digging so low digs up radioactive material anyway)

nickik 7y ago

It is not a technical problem. Tossing the fuel into space is just as much a politcal problem as tossing it into an old mine. Technically we have solutions, the problem is politics.