3 ms·
There are several. One is to dump it in the Mariana trench, let nature push it back down into the crust. If we're foresighted, we'll bombard a crater in the
by bdunbar 14y ago
There are several.
One is to dump it in the Mariana trench, let nature
push it back down into the crust.
If we're foresighted, we'll bombard a crater in the moon with it. It won't go anywhere, and if we need to get it back, there it is.
- jfoutz 14y agoSpace launch is risky, not just perceived as risky, actually risky. rocketry isn't one of those 5 9's of reliability activities.
- pjscott 14y agoShorter term (e.g. next century or so) there's also the easy option of just storing it somewhere safe and keeping an eye on it. There's so little of the waste, by volume, that it's not too hard to manage. The advantages of this scheme are: 1. It's easy. It's what we're doing right now. 2. It lets us recycle the slightly used fuel that comes out of our reactors. Nuclear waste is not useless. Waste from conventional reactors is mostly usable as fuel, but mining it is cheap enough that this recycling isn't economically compelling yet. Our nuclear waste stockpile can be thought of as a strategic nuclear fuel reserve: a valuable resource set aside for the future.
- bdunbar 14y ago'Someplace safe' would be the Trinity site. It's already irradiated, owned by the government, and no one is ever going to live there. I now this, you know this ... preaching to the choir. Bombarding the moon would have the side effect of kick-starting a space program, however.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]