Thus, to end risk of a localized contamination, let us risk lofting such incidents to the upper atmosphere. Yes, I see the wisdom in tossing it towards the sun now.
4 Likes
For spacecraft radioisotope thermoelectric generators this risk is mitigated by encasing the radioactive material into protected nodules that can survive reentry and impact with water. That could also be done for radioactive waste. Please note that I am not advocating for nuclear power, it seems to me that conservation and renewable sources could be sufficient in the future, but we still have to deal with the nuclear waste that has already been generated, and will continue to be generated for other reasons not related to power generation. I am also not saying that disposal into space is the best option, but it could be a possibility and, in that case, disposal into Venus would be easier than into the Sun. 
1 Like
If we don’t have a way to deal with waste, then there is no safer way to use nuclear reactors to generate electricity. We already have don’t know what to do with the waste we have now. We will be paying for the storage of all the nuclear waste we have now, basically until the human race ends. Why is it so difficult to understand? Even if you don’t add the cost of ‘safe’ reactors failing, (for example: 5B for Japan’s disasters), or the loss of life, storing/guarding waste for an infinite time is not cost effective compared to wind, geo thermal, or solar. Nuclear waste containers will have to be rebuilt every 20 years–that cost a lot of money. Short term projections for nuclear waste are already expensive. We are stuck with the costs. The folks that made money off nuclear power get to walk away from these costs, while tax payers are left on the hook. It is unbelievable that folks want more nuclear waste–It’s a scam. How much money are we going to throw away on nuclear power? Folks need to think 40 years into the future and see the costs of storage–this alone should have everyone running away from idiotic ideas of nuclear power. When folks look 100 years ahead, then they will be asking for jail time for the crooks pushing nuclear power.
4 Likes
True, but your typical RTG has a fuel load of 1 - 5 kg (there have been some with up to 30 kg).
Good luck with scaling that up while maintaining the same safety level and being able to pay for it.
2 Likes
As for RTGs, the point would not be to put all the radioactive material in one big nodule, but to put it into multiple small nodules. The nodules could also be brought up to low-Earth orbit using smaller launchers, and then assembled into a bigger waste container in orbit. An advantage of disposal into space is that we would be taking care of the problem ourselves, instead of leaving it to future generations.
People who clean French reactors are already notoriously less payed, poor and/or from ethnic minorities…
2 Likes
Not being at all negative about the content here, just noting that the headline struck me as comical.
The problem with nuclear waste?
I look forward to other exposes such as: The problem with rabies; The problem with hurricanes; The problem with getting hit over the head with a shovel.
13 Likes
I for one can’t wait for Buster Keaton’s guest post about the problems with railroads.
Joking aside though, this was a really well composed video.
2 Likes
Oh, does it now?
Check this look at page 283, figure 4.19. Or 4.28 for cost. And Table 4.19 to see that nuclear is by far the best according to the IPCC.
Figure 4.29 also shows nuclear to be by far the best at reducing CO2 output.
But if you want it simple: Wikipedia shows again that nuclear damn near leads the pack.
This took me ten minutes to google. I truly wonder why you would lie about this. And actually talk about the IPCC, who directly contradict your statement.
Why are you spreading such misinformation?
Complete bollocks.
Our oldest nuclear reactors, our first attempts, these are the plants which go wrong. Fukushima, Chernobyl, 3 Mile Island … these incidents would never have happened with current or even two decade old designs.
Current designs are almost literally fail-proof. They are inherently safe. They cannot melt down due to the physics involved.
You need to read this: https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank
And then think of coal/oil. The millions killed due to just even mining it, the pollution, the killer smogs (London Pea Soup? Current Beijing?). The radiation released by coal plants overshadows that released by nuclear plants!
History has shown we were idiots in our first designs for nuclear power plants and we have paid the price. History has also shown coal and oil are not cleanable and have been much much worse than nuclear in EVERY single metric you can think of except monetary cost to build.
5 Likes
They cannot be built in time, and have massive cost overruns. They will not be cheaper than renewables.
Oh no, no we have not. Not at all, not by far. Our children, their children, and many subsequent generations to come will have to pay the price, they will have to handle the waste.
4 Likes
Ten minutes of googling makes you confident enough to accuse someone of lying, eh? You should get that attitude seen to.
You’re looking at an older IPCC report. The most recent report has more detail. See p539 here:
Note in particular the size of the error bars on this chart, and think about what they mean. You will probably need to spend more than ten minutes on this, and you might need to take a data science course. No hurry - let me know once the penny has dropped.
1 Like
Thorium-cycle reactors are much safer (they can’t have a core meltdown, for example), they create waste that is much less radioactive, and they can run on the waste of older reactor designs. It would be worth looking into these simply to help get rid of all the high-level nuclear waste that we already have.
4 Likes
If cars were designed the way nuclear power has been, there would be no exhaust system. You got a problem with the smoke, just roll down the window!
The problem with nuclear waste, is that its somehow not a problem considered worth addressing before the plant is built. It’s quite literally someone else’s problem. After all, what have unborn generations done for You lately?
4 Likes
That would make the scaling up even costlier.
Yes, but then we would be at war with the venusians. No one ever considers the externalities… 
5 Likes
After the safety issue, the next most relevant objection to this scheme is the energy cost. If you’re putting more energy into the delta vee of waste disposal than you get from using the fuel in the first place, then you’re doing it wrong.
2 Likes
Most probably true, if the goal was energy generation; in that case, the costs of disposing of the spent fuel should be part of the calculation. But I am not proposing additional nuclear power plant construction, what I am discussing is what to do with existing nuclear waste. If SpaceX can send people to Mars for less that $200K per head, this scheme could be feasible economically, and be a possible alternative to long-term storage.
At about 4 minutes, they mention that the spent fuel rods are still generating enough heat to boil off the water in the retention pool…and then cite the need for continual power to keep the pond cool.
Um, isn’t boiling water what the fuel was used for in the first place? Can that residual heat not be used to maintain the cooling/retention pool, as a separate subsystem? Airplanes use a ramair generator to power onboard electrics in the event of a loss of engine power. Seems like the retention pool contains enough energy to support power generation for local use (not enough to resell but enough to sustain its own functions). And I’m sure I’m not the first to wonder about it…so why isn’t that a thing?
1 Like
Acord believed that pieces such as Monstrance could be placed around the perimeters of nuclear waste sites to warn future generations where radioactive material was stored.
