Nuclear waste.

[wiggum]

Blast it in to space or bury it underground? Or are there other options?

[Barnacle]

Exactly my thoughts... why can't we blast the nuclear waste towards the sun, where it will just melt up when it gets close?

[Loosehead]

To lift it into space would cost a huge amount in fuel and to get it to leave Earth orbit it would have to accelerated to 25000 mph, not a realistic system to have to do on a regular basis. If we lifted it into space it would just become an orbiting necklace of nuclear waste "satellites" to keep track of., no thanks. The only viable system is what we already do.

[LazyGun]

If I was an Australian, I would be more than a little nervous about a recent proposal put forward by Bob Hawke, one time Premier of said nation.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2005/s1469140 .htm

[rojash]

The only sensible thing to do with nuclear waste is not create it in the first place

[lord molly]

we cud dump it all in afghanistan, afterall, afghanistan has no use what so ever, why not dump our nuclear wast there

[mibn2cweus]

Send it home with the engineers, designers and other profiteers or distribute it among the consumers of the power thus generated.

[brachiopod]

Ok, let's ignore the costs and look at the risks.

Burial in a non-tectonically active site - chances of an earthquake? Say, once in in 10,000 years +/- 2,000 years.

Blasting into space? Let's say the age of rockets is 50 years old. How many catastrophic failures have we had in that time? (I can think of two shuttles alone in the last twenty years).

Failure of a rocket transporting nuclear waste into space would cover the entire Earth in a nice, even layer of radioactive debris. And how often could we expect that to happen? If transported by Shuttle at the same mission rate, about every 13 years +/- 3 years. These odds would shorten though, if there were more frequent flights to export our nuclear waste.

Hmmm, think I know what I'd prefer.......

[alvin100]

I think blasting it into deep space in sealed containers would be a great idea, even if the waste has an active life of ten thousand years It would be safe before it got anywhere near another star system.
The major reason this isnt done is safety, Imagine a rocket or shuttle loaded with waste exploding mid takeoff, the fallout would be catastrophic.

In reality, we have been sending small amounts of nuclear material into space since the sixties, the Apollo moon missions carried scientific 'ALSEP' packages which were designed to transmit data back to earth from the moons surface for many years.

I also think Nuclear energy although controversial must be used to meet our future needs in stead of fossil fuels.
Nuclear energy has 'possible' future risks, mainly in dealing with waste, but fossil fuels will have definite proven catastrophic effects on the environment within our very near future, not to mention the fact they will run out before long.
Im an environmentalist but im also a realist.

[Andy2306]

Drop it on Iraq! (thats wat bush is thinking!)

[wiggum]

I hadn't even thought of a launch failure/explosion when I posted this question. But putting it underground doesn't seem to be getting rid of it at all. And as far as I can see, nuclear power will be THE option for the future, as all other energy production methods dont come close to nuclear.

[Loosehead]

Hopefully wiggum they'll get fusion reactors working one day and then fission will be unnecessary, no more waste. In the meant time the space idea is a non starter.