3 ms·
the US has 80000 tonnes of spent nuclear reactor waste. SpaceX launch cost in 2017 was $2700/kg. presumably lower now. by my math, that's $215bn to launch al
by notatoad 6y ago
the US has 80000 tonnes of spent nuclear reactor waste. SpaceX launch cost in 2017 was $2700/kg. presumably lower now.
by my math, that's $215bn to launch all our nuclear waste into space. Is there a reason that's not a viable option?
- ant6n 6y agoThe danger of launch failure making the planet uninhabitable.
- notatoad 6y agolol, good point. that's the sort of thing that's easy to forget about when your involvement on a topic is limited to typing out comments on HN.
- choeger 6y agoHow do you imagine that would happen? Even if a rocket fails catastrophically, pulverizing the nuclear waste, distributing it evenly across earth, how do you imagine that would make the planet inhabitable? Is the planet inhabitable now, after all the atomic bombs that exploded and all the nuclear waste that went into the ocean? And what do you think drives the latest Mars rover, Perseverance?
- choeger 6y agoIt's not the safety. One could conceivably put a glas she'll around the burnt fuel and it would survive reentry. But first of all, the cost is still massive, even with SpaceX. And furthermore, you'd just put it into (decaying) low earth orbit that way. Further away would be even more expensive. Finally, spent fuel still contains a lot of energy and should be recycled. This in turn is a very nasty and expensive procedure.
- senectus1 6y agoI still think that declaring that waste is a waste. That is potential future fuel.