vrus Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 This question has been hard to answer. What do all you ppl. think ? Do what is presently done, i.e bury underground ? Or other means ? I personally think, that they should be packed into capsules and sent into space. Since there is no known life for a few hundred light years, the capsule can float through space and time, until the radiation is very weak and not harmful. Then the capsules can return and with some re-entry problems fixed, the element can be put back in the reactor ! i.e- U-235. The cycle repeats ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 Are you paying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 A giant trebuchet. Fffwhooommmff Surprise's the French all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.C.MacSwell Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 This question has been hard to answer. What do all you ppl. think ? Do what is presently done' date=' i.e bury underground ? Or other means ? I personally think, that they should be packed into capsules and sent into space. Since there is no known life for a few hundred light years, the capsule can float through space and time, until the radiation is very weak and not harmful. Then the capsules can return and with some re-entry problems fixed, the element can be put back in the reactor ! i.e- U-235. The cycle repeats ! [/quote'] I think there might be safer alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lance Posted April 22, 2005 Share Posted April 22, 2005 I think there might be safer alternatives. Indeed. Putting a load of radioactive waste on top of a bomb and popping it off into space doesn't seem all that safe does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrus Posted April 23, 2005 Author Share Posted April 23, 2005 Indeed. Putting a load of radioactive waste on top of a bomb and popping it off into space doesn't seem all that safe does it. I didn't say that !. Why don't you suggest an alternative ? HOW ABOUT BLOWING IT UP WITH A BOMB ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 I didn't say that !.Why don't you suggest an alternative ? HOW ABOUT BLOWING IT UP WITH A BOMB ??? You implied it. How would you get it into outer space without putting it atop a bomb, aka a rocket? Blowing it up with conventional explosives won't reduce the activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5614 Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Blowing up a radioactive sample will not stop it from being radioactive. Shooting it into space would cost too much. Burrying it deep undergound is safe and cheap.... unless there are people living in the middle of the Earth in that bubble thing (just ignore that unless you know what thread I'm talking about!) [edit] slight overlap, Swanson't post wasn't there 2 mins ago when I loaded the page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 The problem with underground storage is potential contamination of the water table. Additionally anyone who thinks there are 'stable' regions in the Earth's crust doesn't understand the geology. [This includes many geologists!] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flareon Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 The problem with underground storage is potential contamination of the water table. Additionally anyone who thinks there are 'stable' regions in the Earth's crust doesn't understand the geology. [This includes many geologists!] If the thoughts of earth stability were true, we'd all be living in Pangaea. I have a question regarding the main topic: I am not well read in nuclear physics, but would there be a possible way to recycle and reuse some if not all of that radioactive waste? Or do reactors produce an absolutely unusable byproduct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 I have a question regarding the main topic: I am not well read in nuclear physics, but would there be a possible way to recycle and reuse some if not all of that radioactive waste? Or do reactors produce an absolutely unusable byproduct? There are problems with it. If the waste is short-lived, it will decay while it's still in the reactor. If the reactor is operating, this adds to the power from fission. So this is not a problem. If the waste is long-lived, it isn't very radioactive, so this isn't much of a problem. It's the stuff that has an intermediate half-life (tens of years out to seveal thousands of years) that is the real issue. It doesn't produce an appreciable amount of power, so it's not economical to try and use it for power. Some of it is used for medical purposes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAlert Posted April 23, 2005 Share Posted April 23, 2005 Hmm......couldn't we use the radioactive material for other purposes after it's use? Maybe we could use it's radioactive properties to create energy.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick silver Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 i read some where that the goverment buries the waste in barrels and stores it under the yucca mountains. this was abourt 3 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 i read some where that the goverment buries the waste in barrels and stores it under the yucca mountains. this was abourt 3 years ago That's a proposed plan, but hasn't happened. The twelve people that live near Yucca mountain don't want it there, but neither does anybody else. The NIMBY (= Not In My BackYard) syndrome in action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quick silver Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 oh, ok. thank you for clairiffiying it for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 you could feed it to spiders then anger them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rakuenso Posted April 25, 2005 Share Posted April 25, 2005 Blowing up a radioactive sample will not stop it from being radioactive. Shooting it into space would cost too much. Burrying it deep undergound is safe and cheap.... unless there are people living in the middle of the Earth in that bubble thing (just ignore that unless you know what thread I'm talking about!) [edit] slight overlap' date=' Swanson't post wasn't there 2 mins ago when I loaded the page.[/i'] Earthquake anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrus Posted April 26, 2005 Author Share Posted April 26, 2005 If the thoughts of earth stability were true' date=' we'd all be living in Pangaea. I have a question regarding the main topic: I am not well read in nuclear physics, but would there be a possible way to recycle and reuse some if not all of that radioactive waste? Or do reactors produce an absolutely unusable byproduct?[/quote'] There is a huge amount of radioactive waste created by nuclear fission in a nuclear reactor, but there is a lot of unused Uranium-235 left over, that hasn't been fissioned, even after about 2 years of FISSIONING !!!This Uranium is put in reprocessing plants in big pools of water. After a long time, the Uranium can be removed and re-used. It is said that a good reprocessing procedure should yield 80 % Uranium. This means if you put 100 kg uranium for reprocessing, you SHOULD ge 80 kg of U-235 back ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmalluck Posted April 26, 2005 Share Posted April 26, 2005 Do what the U.S. government does. Bury the highly radioactive stuff and fasion the rest into depleted Uranium slugs, that you can scatter all over the Middle East in the name of freedom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 ...stop using nuclear and use our giant electric/gas bill money we saved to install home by home solar, wind, hydrogen or hemp/ethanol power sources. How is hydrogen a power source? Where do I dig it up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 you could feed it to spiders then anger them. I second the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrus Posted April 27, 2005 Author Share Posted April 27, 2005 How is hydrogen a power source? Where do I dig it up? Hydrogen can br used in fuel cells to create electricity. The product is water. Scramjets, or supersonic combustion ramjets also use hydrogen for their fuel, but they combust it and it is much cleaner as there are no carbon compounds formed ! Hydrogen also release loads of energy when burnt !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 Hydrogen can br used in fuel cells to create electricity. The product is water.Scramjets' date=' or supersonic combustion ramjets also use hydrogen for their fuel, but they combust it and it is much cleaner as there are no carbon compounds formed ! Hydrogen also release loads of energy when burnt !!![/quote'] Hydrogen must be separated from water, which requires energy. You can't get more back than it took to separate it. That's the first law of thermodynamics in action. Neither the separation process nor the recombination will be 100% efficient, so it will actually take more energy to make the hydrogen than you will ever get out of it. That's the second law of thermodynamics in action. Hydrogen is not a power source, nor is it necessarily clean. Hydrogen is a storage medium. The energy used to make the hydrogen will most likely come from fossil fuels, absent some other new source, which means the process taken as a whole is not "green." When someone says, "Hydrogen," you have to think "battery." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted April 27, 2005 Share Posted April 27, 2005 unless of course we`re talking Fussion reactors seriously tho` much of the "radioactive wastes" are stupid things like Gloves or garments that have been exposed and possibly contaminated and/or structural material(s) surrounding these high enrgy fuels, there`s actualy very Little by comparison of the "good Stuff" as waste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vrus Posted April 28, 2005 Author Share Posted April 28, 2005 unless of course we`re talking Fussion reactors seriously tho` much of the "radioactive wastes" are stupid things like Gloves or garments that have been exposed and possibly contaminated and/or structural material(s) surrounding these high enrgy fuels' date=' there`s actualy very Little by comparison of the "good Stuff" as waste [/quote'] Yes but then, the people who handle these wastes can get contaminated. Also, it takes ages for the radiation to die down. And what about the elements itself that are produced in the reactor like Barium-139 and Krypton-94 ? They are radiocative too !!! What r u gonna do about that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now