Can we dispose of nuclear waste in outer space?

Wanderer78 · 10-10-2022 11:28AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119724941#Comment_119724941

of course there has been plenty of deaths due to the use of nuclear, but there probably has been far more deaths from the use of fossil fuels, modern nuclear safety standards are far superior than the past, which has significantly lowered potential deaths from its use, it truly is a real alternative now, but its very unlikely ireland will move towards this source, so expect our energy supplies to remain uncertain until its acceptance....

Timfy · 10-10-2022 11:37AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119720824#Comment_119720824

There is way more than 250,000 tonnes of highly polluting, toxic waste to be found at any single coal mine, gas extraction facility and oil well over the course of a year... not a lifetime. And it's doing a pretty good job of fecking things up in ways the nuclear industry can only dream of!

Capt'n Midnight · 10-10-2022 08:38PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119722677#Comment_119722677

https://devastatingdisasters.com/kyshtym-nuclear-disaster-1957/

"At least 200 people died of radiation sickness and it is estimated that several hundred more died from radiation-related cancers. Over a period of 45 years more than 500,000 people were exposed to radiation, many of them at levels 20 times greater than the victims of Chernobyl."

cnocbui · 11-10-2022 04:47AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119727765#Comment_119727765

That's Russia and doesn't count - and I am being entirely serious. From Chernobyl to nuclear powered cruise missiles blowing up, to entire towns being wiped out in the cold war due to nuclear accidents, to nuclear subs sinking, almost all things bad attributable to things nuclear involve Russia/USSR.

That disaster did not involve nuclear waste from a power plant and is more akin to the Russians blowing themselves up with a dirty bomb.

The most commonly quoted estimate is 200 deaths due to cancer, but the origin of this number is not clear. More recent epidemiological studies suggest that around 49 to 55 cancer deaths among riverside residents can be associated to radiation exposure.

https://dyatlovpass.com/kyshtym-disaster

Scientific American (April 2, 2013) Nuclear power may have saved 1.8 million lives otherwise lost to fossil fuels, may save up to 7 million more

Did you know 10 people were just killed in Donegal due to a gas explosion? Would you like to compare the death toll attributable to gas vs nuclear? It's thousands per year world wide.

Ger Roe · 11-10-2022 02:16PM

With regard to the safety of nuclear v other fuel sources.

Sure there are far more deaths attributed to the use of coal/gas/oil etc, but there is a far higher use of such sources worldwide, much more plants producing and using those fuels, so it is inevitable that the associated death tolls will be far higher annually and over a far longer time. In comparison, there have been a handful of nuclear accidents, but when they happen, they have the potential to be really bad.

Also while I accept that nuclear as an industry, is now far safer than it was, we as humans are not. Most of the accidents that have happened are due to someone cutting corners, or screwing up. Even now, after all that we already know, Mr Putin is playing with missiles around the biggest nuclear plant in Europe and he has trampled all over what was the very carefully restricted access Chernobyl site.

We as a race, can not be trusted to take care of the world. We prove that every single day. The idea of firing nuclear waste in to space, reminds me of the old T shirt slogan .... 'The Earth First!, We'll screw up the other planets later.'

cnocbui · 11-10-2022 02:59PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119730293#Comment_119730293

The energy safety and mortality statistics are calculated on a basis of how much energy is produced from each source vs deaths. So it's got nothing to do with greater use of sources. There are 426 nuclear power reactors in opperation. Here you go - deaths per trillion watts of energy produced: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2018/01/25/natural-gas-and-the-new-deathprint-for-energy/

Ger Roe · 11-10-2022 03:49PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119730524#Comment_119730524

My head hurts reading that, but I accept it's findings, in the way the stats are produced ... nuclear is the most productive source with less plant producing more energy.

It is probably a bit overkill in answering the actual thread posed question - "Can we dispose of nuclear waste in outer space?"

IMHO the answer is... Of course we can. We have the technology to do it, but we probably shouldn't ,..... so at some point, someone probably will. Particularly now that access to space is no longer government controlled.

I think my bottom line still applies.... we can not be trusted to look after ourselves and our planet, or any other planet. Wait until someone goes back to the moon, it won't be long after before claims are made for territories and mining rights, no matter what international treaties apply..... particularly as things get tougher here on earth because of what we have already done to the planet.

When the going gets tough... the tough will do whatever they want to, regardless of the consequences for others. The future for humanity is bleak, because there isn't a shared responsibility approach to management of the planet.

Capt'n Midnight · 11-10-2022 07:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119730757#Comment_119730757

What failure rate would be OK ?

Would one in a thousand rockets exploding and sending radioactive waste all over the launch site be OK ?

It would end the project till you got a new launch site.

SpaceX's Falcon 9 is the only launcher we have that's done more than 100 launches in a row that put the payload into the right orbit. Lots of them exploded during development though, at least one exploded during pre flight tests (taking out a Facebook satellite so that's a silver lining). It'll be a long time before we can be 99% sure what goes up stays up.

dxhound2005 · 11-10-2022 09:15PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058266599/can-we-dispose-of-nuclear-waste-in-outer-space

You haven't returned to comment on the answers to your serious question. I think you should.

Thanks.

DX.

Dinarius · 12-10-2022 10:01AM

No consensus on disposing on waste in space. I didn't expect there would be since cost and safety are hard to quantify.

If it's true that deaths or issues of safety are greater from other fuels, or from active reactors, then storage may be the least of the problem.

The point about more deaths occurring from other fuels is well made. We are pre-programmed to react to any mention of the "n" word, while forgetting that it's record stands up to the safety record of other fuels.

Slightly off topic, but in true Irish fashion, we are soon to begin importing nuclear generated electricity from France. Like condoms in the post from the UK, a classic Irish solution to an Irish problem.

Our dysfunctional planning system is wrecking progress in energy - the north-south inter-connector has been mired in planning for over 20 years - so, talk of one or two small reactors is the stuff of fantasy, I'll admit.

Which makes my original question moot, I guess.

Thanks for the replies.

D.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-10-2022 08:06PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119719738#Comment_119719738

What idiot wrote that?

"everything in space stays there unless we bring it back down" Have they never heard of orbital decay? Skylab? That's not to say that space junk isn't a problem.

Hotblack Desiato · 12-10-2022 08:10PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119727765#Comment_119727765

A weapons plant. Bzzt. Try again.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-10-2022 12:47AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733432#Comment_119733432

The link to France works both ways and we will be rolling out more wind.

Also most French nuclear plants have been offline since April because corrosion issues because they too old to. It will be a while before France is exporting Nuclear and because they are reducing from 75% to 50% installed capacity it's unlikely they'll be nett exporters of nuclear long term.

Costs of disposing waste in space are astronomic. The flyaway cost of the currently delayed SLS is about $4Bn, if you exclude all of the R&D. There's a lot of low level waste , and the really hot stuff decays quickly enough that it's easier to keep an eye on it down here. There's lots of medium level waste and that's the real problem.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-10-2022 12:50AM

Ocean trenches in subduction zones.

Dill a big home at the bottom drop in the glow in the dark. It will be taken deeper. And will come back out of a volcano :pac:

(this won't happen because subduction zones move at a few cm a year so the radioactivity will have dropped off long before that)

14-10-2022 03:48AM

Bottom of the deep ocean is fine. In the deepest parts of the ocean, there's barely anything down there. Radiation weakens by half every seven inches or something in water, which is why you can swim in a pool with nuclear waste and be fine.

The general population are hideous at understanding this sort of thing with likely a majority of Irish people not knowing nuclear energy is just heating up water, turning it to steam, and spinning turbines. They'd imagine the ocean flowing green with radiation because of some cartoon showing that.

"Can humans not destroy another part of the world" I can already here someone saying. The amount of lives saved by nuclear power instead of fossil fuels is more than worth the seven unknown sea creatures that will perish at 7000m below the surface of the ocean.

A lot of this stuff has been dumped into the seas around Ireland, and that's not sound. I'm talking about doing it in the middle of the Pacific. Maybe where all the satellites are crashed.

ablelocks · 14-10-2022 07:57PM

The Finns have it sorted, no need for space, we can send it to them....

Finland built this tomb to store nuclear waste | Science | AAAS

Capt'n Midnight · 14-10-2022 08:56PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119742094#Comment_119742094

Uranium salts are water soluble. If you can make make a leak proof container that's resistant to salt water corrosion under 70,000 atmospheres of pressure you can make one that's stable in a dry room.

Capt'n Midnight · 14-10-2022 08:59PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119745704#Comment_119745704

They started the project in 1983 and it's still not sorted. Due to open in 2024 as long as there aren't more delays.

There simply aren't any proper long term nuclear waste facilities in operation anywhere in the world yet.

bad2thebone · 14-10-2022 09:02PM

This is just a what if....

No point in contaminating space with our rubbish, last thing we need is something like Species 8472 or worse telling us we've contaminated their space. Or drawing attention to ourselves from a pissed off entity for fly tipping somewhere that's not ours.

cj maxx · 14-10-2022 09:29PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119725112#Comment_119725112

But the blurgons eat nuclear waste. It’s their staple diet. They’d probably repay us in nasty sh.it like gold 😏

Capt'n Midnight · 15-10-2022 11:40AM

Nuclear waste is produced by nuclear power stations. If we get rid of the power stations then there'll be no waste.

So we take all the nuclear fuel and use some Orion's to launch power satellites.

Or just build a space elevator to near the moon. When the moon swings by just toss the bin bags over the side.

cnocbui · 15-10-2022 05:59PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119747729#Comment_119747729

Nuclear power has prevented more CO2 being emitted than all the worlds renewables put together. The only technology that has been better at this is hydro. I don't believe you belive in climate change, it's just a pretence.

Capt'n Midnight · 15-10-2022 09:06PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119748840#Comment_119748840

Hydro is renewable. France has 24GW of the stuff because nuclear can't follow demand.

Nuclear is absolutely dependent on fossil fuels to provide peaking and diverts funds from renewables and construction delays are years long. So nuclear is causing a lot more CO2 to be burnt than if it was on-time, on-budget or as reliable as claimed.

North West Europe is becoming a nuclear free zone, because of the incompetence and hubris of the nuclear industry. So the biggest problem will be the lack of waste to send into space.

Belgium is the latest country going through the "we've found cracks so now we will have to inspect all the plants" stage. This will be followed by having to take the plants down for more inspections when more problems will be found. It's a pattern familiar to the UK , US, France, Japan and Korea etc.