You must log in or # to comment.
Diluting it with stone or whatever and putting it in a deep sea trench so it gets back in the geological cycle as soon as possible, is not an option?
Recycle and reuse!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation
Maybe we should do more research on turning these hazardous products into safer, more stable substances. I’m no nuclear engineer, but it looks like the primary method is bombarding the isotopes with neutrons. How much energy does that take compared to the energy generated by the reactor?
It’s a good goal, but last I heard we were very far off from that being economical compared to just throwing it in a hole forever (which is honestly pretty expensive).
If the problem is economic in nature then the solution is to change the system of economics until it fits material reality, not wait until material reality can fit into our arbitrary system of economics. I’m so sick of “economically viable” being the limiting factor to societal progress.
bombarding the isotopes with neutrons
There’s a word for that: a nuclear reactor!
You may be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
A reactor whose main purpose is to destroy actinides rather than increasing fissile fuel-stocks is sometimes known as a burner reactor. Both breeding and burning depend on good neutron economy, and many designs can do either. Breeding designs surround the core by a breeding blanket of fertile material. Waste burners surround the core with non-fertile wastes to be destroyed. Some designs add neutron reflectors or absorbers.
Fusion power, if ever realized, also has a high neutron flux at a high neutron temperature, though it faces the same issue of “in the short term, it’s more expensive than just storing waste in a hole”
Send it to any third world nation. /s
Eat it. Lots of calories.
This was my first thought. My second was stick it in their butt.
Ski-dap ba-dap, butthole
Did I hear the concept of “slow violence?” Going once! Going twice!
Put it in a capsule that could survive re-entry into earth just in case, then launch it into the sun.
Do you want evil Superman? Cause that’s how you get evil Superman.
Serious answer: That would take more effort and energy than just dealing with it on earth by many orders of magnitude. It’s even harder to launch into the sun than it is to launch it outside the solar system (which is also infeasible of course)
It also has a decent chance of a rocket failure spreading radiation throughout the upper atmosphere in exactly the way we’ve figured out you shouldn’t do.
Logical next step, build all the nuclear reactors in space?
The problem with that is getting the energy down to earth. Also what to do with the excess heat, because you don’t have an environment to cool it.
Spinlaunch it?
That would take more effort and energy than just dealing with it on earth by many orders of magnitude. It’s even harder to launch into the sun than it is to launch it outside the solar system (which is also infeasible of course)
Yep, it would be a wealth sink that drastically advances science and pays off later.
Just like going to the moon was an excuse to develop ICBM technology, that also paid off with a shit ton of unexpected scientific advancement.
Going to the moon adapted ICBM technology, but it wasn’t intended to further ICBM development. It was simply the last chance for America to save face having been roundly spanked at every step of the space race with the USSR.
The space race at large was all a cover for weapons development…
It was two super powers on either side of the globe competing to show they could hit the other in the dick from that far away.
Absolutely no one in either government who controlled funding ever gave a fuck about the science for science sake, or even PR.
Shooting nuclear waste into the sun is a much saner reason that comes with all the bonuses. But obviously it’s for an ideal society after we solve wealth inequality so we can pay for it and actually use the developments for science and not killing each other.
