Have tens of thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel

Ignore the part about lava and it's not a bad idea.
Just drill down a couple of kilometers, dump waste products and backfill it.
No one is going to be digging it out in a hurry. You have to be careful where you choose to do it, though. Wouldn't want some underground river leeching shit out and contaminating the water supply of some area.

Yea so when it erupts it shoots out radioactive gas and particles into the atmosphere that can ruin entire continents.

That would require some really deep drilling. It's probably cheaper to launch it into space.

out in the desert where no one is.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyshtym_disaster

Iirc there's a serious proposal to dump the waste in thick concrete on the seabed near geological faults. The idea is that in the short term it'll get buried in sediment, and long term it'll get subducted into the core.

you know volcanoes are areas that the earth is pushing away magma right, that's like putting nuclear waste on top of a geyser

>cheaper to launch it into space.
the consequences if that goes wrong are just an end of the world scenario. Don't worry about it :^)

get elon musk to shoot it into the sun.

yea good idea we need to add more fuel to the sun so it doesn't go out

Yeah, pretty much why nuclear propulsion never got mainstream. For rockets, submarines are a hell of a nightmare.

He is too busy shit posting

>underground river
the thought scares me honestly

But they happily send thermal nuclear batteries devices up in rockets to power probes and such.

We are talking about 2 different things

I guess, but if a rocket blows up when carrying a payload of a thermal nuclear battery, would it not scatter nuclear waste just as surely as a failing nuclear engine would?

they aren't very big. twenty pounds of plutonium isn't a lot of plutonium

Larry Niven had the best idea.

make coins out of it.

Probably will take a while until the volcano erupts with enough force.
Even longer until the particles scatter all over.
And longer still until they do some damage.

NEETs on Jow Forums won't be producing offspring anyway, so they don't care about what comes after them.

there are 0 problems with spent nuclear fuel its just overexertion by retards.

It would. The difference is what kind of nuclear waste we are talking about. A radioisotope generator uses a relatively small amount of fissile material that only radiates a bit of low energy beta-radiation.

Nuclear waste radiates a lot more energy partially as gamma radiation which can penetrate through a lot more material (read: your skin, a larger amount of air etc). Even the completly spent parts of nuclear waste are heavy metals that are extremly toxic when inhaled or ingested.

we should store it in underground warehouses for future use for when we have the tech to do something constructive with it. not weapon related.

yea burning it undergrad is the best option it was already there to beguine with, just pick a dry area and its fine.

We could safely store nuclear waste on the most geologically stable place on Earth, in the Australian outback, where it wouldn't harm anyone or anything for hundreds of thousands of years.

Oh wait, the retarded aussies already rejected this idea due to ignorant activist pressure!

Attached: AustralianFlag.jpg (2254x1861, 180K)

Deserts often have surprising amounts of underground water, and those aquifers can travel long distances before coming towards the surface and supplying regions with water.

I usually like reactor and power generating tech threads but this is straight up /sci/

If you're already on some epic gamer moments, you might wanna think about shooting everything into the sun, at least that has been therorized by actual smart people without getting smacked immediately.

When I first read about it I thought it would look more grandiose.

I wouldn't trust Australians with radioactive material or nuclear power anyway.

Why don't we just make a storage facility in the middle of Antarctica?

They do this for probes/robots that can't rely on solar power because of their mission. Curiosity has one because solar/battery isn't enough to power a rover the size of a VW.
Voyager has them because they were designed to operate so far from the Sun, it's practically indistinguishable from other stars, and 40+ years later, both Voyager probes are still doing science thanks to their nuclear pigs.

Yes, NASA makes risk assessments for every launch containing nuclear material. Most RTGs contain around 30kg of Plutonium, which could be spread over quite a large area if the launch fails, but NASA adjusts launch trajectories as best they can to avoid populated areas even on normal launches.

>not just throwing it in the sun with cheap ass rockets

Mate, the British tested their nuclear weapons here.
We've already got an operating nuclear reactor.

>>spent nuclear fuel weighs more than lead
>>costs about $15,000US to put 1kg of cargo into Earth Orbit
>>costs many times more to get anywhere even close to the Sun

Oh yeah, user, great idea.

Interesting read, I also read about Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi within this article.

Except it does you fucking retard. Its just like how india started sending massive amounts of trash into the sun.

nimby

>t. Pic related

Attached: 1534212294288m.jpg (1024x767, 46K)

There's not even a lot of high energy nuclear waste in the world, what's the problem? Is it that hard to just find a football field size place on Earth to keep it?

Can we just nuke Australia and put our garbage there?

For research.

Attached: ger_hazards_volc_usgs_diagram.jpg (715x900, 82K)

It's unnecessary. Just keep them it in barrels underground in a stable geological environment. Central Australia for instance.

If youve got long-living radioactive isotope waste you're griping we won't let you dump here, what you're actually saying is
> we're too stupid to properly utilize the energy in our nuclear fuel
Fuck off and lern2nuclearpower, and we won't have to tell you to take a hike on digging up our backyard.

I KNOW WHY DON'T WE JUST BLAST THEM OFF TO SUN
PROBLEM????

>not wanting radioactive acid rain

Fucking pussy.

>bury RADIOACTIVE garbage in the ground
>people think this is a good idea

Shoot it into space and give it a push so it falls into the sun. Just use balloons and airplanes instead of exploding shit tier 50's technology like rockets.

Attached: e9d.jpg (600x600, 18K)

>use balloons
>for space travel

>falling for the bait

>have tens of thousands of tons of spent nuclear fuel
>point a big ol' nuclear railgun at the sun
>send the waste back from whence it came
Problem?

Doesn't it just melt lmao

found the smelly abo

High altitude balloons nearly reach the vacuum of space.

Why don't they just reenergize the fuel and reuse it? They enriched the stuff to start with right?

>put our nuclear waste in enormous balloons
>they don't reach escape velocity and just bob around for a while
>mfw launching a balloon carrying 10,000 of uranium at 40,000 km/s
this has been an entertaining sea of piss

What are the serious counter arguments to this?

Same as any - its just a liability to have around, especially when we know of decay processes we could be using to utilise the waste and generate more energy.

just push it the edge of the map

send it to mars, it's uselss anyway.

It wasnt bait im being serious

Listen, listen. What if we took the trash, and sent it out space

>*angry clayborne noises*

Drop it over a subduction fault in the deep ocean. Should do it for a few dozen thousand years.

> mutating the Australian wildlife

You have a death wish, don't you?

>not knowing anything about radiation and nuclear waste whatsoever and proudly displaying your ignorance for all to see

there is a type of fast breeder reactor that uses "burnt out" fuel as fuel since that fuel is still filled with 96% of it's original energy. the prototype reactor was shelved in the 70s because "muh, nuclear bad" and the russkis have now two experimental reactors like that, UK is also interested in building one since with the already prduced nuclear "waste" the world could create 10k years energy withouf leaving anything toxic in the end.

But my parents told me that if I dig long enough, I will come out in China

why not just dump it off on the 2020 superpower india?

he has a point, breeder reactors are the best solution for conventional nuclear waste (spent but still highly radioactive fuel)

break it down with less efficient (depending on who you ask) reactor, or a series of these reactors, until you have the two common stable main remnants of radioactive shit, lead and boron.

legit if we could send them to the sun for free without carbon emissions then it'd work great, the sun is a fusion reactor and it would just disintegrate in seconds.

That's amazing

IVE GOT IT Jow Forums

WE BUILD A SPACE ELEVATOR

AND SEND IT INTO SPACE

>being this new

The UK government's nuclear power program always assumed that there'd be fast breeders in future. However, in 1994 the prototype reactor (Dounreay PFR) was shutdown without replacement, as it seemed a reactor that could operate reliably was still decades off, and newer sources of uranium were discovered meaning that such tech wouldn't be required before at least 2100. The reactor used a liquid sodium coolant, which had to be kept ultra pure, so even the slightest corrosion or hairline leak meant they had to shut down for two months to purify the coolant. Overall load averages were

Canada is planning on a 3km deep repository built into the Canadian Shield rock formation.

The UK also operated reprocessing (PUREX process) plants at sellafield to chemically separate out the uranium that was still viable from a spent fuel rod and recycled it. The bulk of what is considered nuclear "waste" in the uk is the magnesium oxide cans the fuel rods were clad in, and some waste liquid from the chemical process.

>>Drill so deep, you get to liquid earth insides (lava)
They could only 11 km, after that they hit bedrock, and it needs cheat mode.

Imagine if you fell in...

I mean hardrives survived the shuttle accident. We could probably encase it in something to survive any explosion.

You don't need to go that far. A few miles is beyond enough. If you go that far into rock, the pressure will keep the waste immobile across geologic time scales.

>costs many times more to get anywhere even close to the Sun
You realize that you just need escape velocity and to be pointed at the sun. Inertia and gravity will handle the rest.

spaced and elavator pilled

And how do you expect to drill that deep? A drill is always warmer than the surrounding rock due to friction. The drill will melt before the rock around it.

FRICKING LASER BEAMS!!1!One

Would be a good idea if it wasn't for the fact that water ice is the only thing we know where the liquid form takes less space than the solid form. If you have a deep hole and use a laser that melts the rock then the hole will slowly fill up with melted rock until you reach magma and then it will quickly fill with lava because of the high pressure.

why not put the waste into packages and mail them to random addresses in faraway lands like Mongolia?

all the stuff they call "waste" is just more fuel
you're being lied to about nuclear by anti nuclear shills and big oil and big renewable

Not all of it.The bulk of the hazardous waste in the UK is the magnesium oxide cans the fuel rods were clad in, which of course was removed in the reprocessing step. It has to be kept underwater or it may catch fire, and afaik nobody's proposed a viable way to reprocess this.