Plutonium in space?

"why can't we rocket nuclear power plant waste past earthly orbit and on into universal and unlimited space..."

Obviously, you don't have television. Check out some videos of what happens when a rocket malfunctions sometimes.

This is like throwing poop out the window that has a fan. What happens if it comes back?

I think the cost of the trip is the main reason. There is all so the possibility it might come back down.

There are ways to move the fan, and once past a certain point reentry will incinerate the vehicle. We can engineer out the flimsy problems. The real issue is cost - the freight.

But after a private citizen was not long ago able to sent a passenger vehicle into space, certainly a utilty company can bear it for a nice long multimegabuck payback period.

Nukes have been operating safely for many years making incredible power without burning anything! The only pollution (if you can call it that) is a warming of a few degrees in an adjacent cooling body of water.

Come on let's hear some positive feedback, Ladies and Gentlemen. Please.

Sorry, but you must have missed the "Challenger" and "Columbia" accidents. You probably missed the ESU, Japan, and other disasters that claimed lives and SVs. Google - Rocket Disasters and you will see what the issue is.

Cost is not the problem. What do you think it will cost to contain plutonium will be for a few hundred years to keep it from contaminating the world and out of the hands of terrorists? You think that your local Store-And-Lock is expensive, just wait until you get this bill. It currently costs $7,000 per pound to get to LEO, which is most of the work.

Reentry is the problem! One pound of plutonium dust in the atmosphere will make global warming seem like a picnic in the park.

You want to hear positive feedback, but you don't want to consider the truth or the facts. So, just ignore everything I have said and anything else anyone has that is negative and we will all be in a happy place and sing around the campfire.

Okay, so I am a little cynical, but I am just trying to make a point.

"once past a certain point reentry will incinerate the vehicle."

The shipping and storage containers for radio active waste are made to with stand a disaster may make it thru the reentry

It would be nice if we could remove that type of pollution from our environment. The idea of an off world storage is great. If we are to do it we need to find a more economical means to get it there safely and to secure it once there.

And the weight of those "shipping containers" is measured in tons -- all adding to the expense of pushing it into space -- also on reentry the barrier material becomes a transient ablative allowing more of the radioactive waste to reach the earth --

So what happens when something goes wrong during launch? Think "Columbia". Except instead of little bits of unidentifiable debris spread out all over Texas, imagine little globules of radioactive waste. Not looking too good for local home resale values.

For fun, let's assume a suitable container could be developed that could survive, completely intact, any possible launch disaster scenario. That would be pretty heavy, eh? Bigger rocket. More fuel. Higher costs. And if it does fail to make orbit you'd have an indestructable radioactive bus that's full of deadly goo crashed into someone's backyard. Imagine the panic and outrage.

Maybe we should bury it on the moon, a la "Space 1999".

But seriously, in addition to the important point made by Anonymus hero, there are some problems with another of your statements:

"The space shot can't be much more than the cost of the Shuttle. "

An average space shuttle mission "costs" NASA somewhere between 200 and 300 Million Dollars. And the shuttle has a geosynchronous orbit (GSO) payload capacity of around 13,000 lbs.

I believe that I read somewhere that it "costs" NASA somewhere around $24,000 per pound to put an object into GSO using the shuttle. Remember, NASA doesn't really have a "cost per launch" per se, as they have an annual budget, and how many launches they can squeeze in under that budget varies. (Seemingly dependent upon the amount of foam insulation that they keep on having problems with.)

If you want to talk about (unmanned) international commercial space launches, the approximate cost per pound to lift material into GSO ranges from around $10,000 to $14,000.

These are some substantial costs, and given the potential for a "catastrophic failure" it wouldn't go over too well with the general public. You may recall (back around 10 years ago), the public outcry that arose over NASA launching the Cassini probe, which had around 34 kilos of plutonium on board.

Personally, I think more research should go towards disposal of high level rad. waste in deep oceanic subduction zones.

But shooting it out into space, I don't think so...

(Just my $0.02)

It can be done safely - we've launched nuclear materials into space lots of times. The trick is to put your waste into a container that can survive a rocket explosion and fall back to earth without cracking open. But it can be done.

The issue is cost.

In the long run, you wouldn't want to put it in orbit - that makes it too easy for someone else to retrieve. You'd want to launch it into the sun.

But we can't people safely into space.

That's not the point. The question is, can you package nuclear material so that it can survive a worst case rocket mishap without it being exposed to the environment? The answer is yes.

Yes, maybe, but can you retrieve it before someone you don't want to get it does?

The point is called risk. The risk for storage on Earth is high. The risk to dispose of it in space is, if you excuse my pun, astronomical.

Then we haven't even discussed the international legalities of this, either.

However, the point that I was making was, if we can't assure our most valuable cargo (people), what chance do we stand with anything less?

apples and oranges.

I am always amazed by this obsession with the dangers of waste from nuclear power plants, the problem of waste i.e CO2 and Radon from coal fired plants is a vastly greater problem and is in danger of making the Earth un-inhabitable but when anyone suggest replacing them with nuclear plants all we hear is that the waste might cause a 100 cancer case's in a thousand years time.

The number of deaths caused by nuclear accidents is tiny compared to those caused by coal mining, oil production or even wood burning.

I think the (former) residents of Chernobyl would take issue with your statement.

The problem of nuclear waste is not its toxicity over the short term. It's that it remains dangerous for a future time greater than the whole history of civilization.

Hopefully new kinds of reactors will be invented which mitigate those risks.

There has been one big accident in 60 years of nuclear power plants, thousands of coal miners are killed every year!.

The safty of nuclear plants is steadily increasing against an already very low accident rate while coal fired plants continue to pour out climate damaging CO2 that will cause an untold number of deaths into the distant future.

Unless you have numbers for deaths on a per plant, and per mine basis, your argument is not convincing. There are magnitudes of order more coal mines and coal fired power plants than there are uranium mines and nuclear reactors.

I'm not arguing with you - I don't know the numbers myself. But without them your argument is baseless.

I just cant believe we can argue, now for generations, over such a matter. Putting fission products out of reach demands nothing like the ridiculous cost and complication of throwing it at the sun. But we should be aiming to make use of the energy of decay down to the point where the products are stable shouldn't we? Not stop half way!

Although the heat given off by the more radioactive by products of nuclear power generation is usefull for thermoelectric generators for use on space missions it is nowhere near sufficient for large scale power generation.

If we are going to ban nuclear power because it might cause 100 cancer deaths over a period of a few years, then lets quit eating. Dixy Lee Ray the former govenor of Washington said that 300 people choke to death eating every year.

What do you think a one pound of plutonium brings in revenue over its life span? Most of you are negative without the facts.

Glassification or some other way of encasing in a very permant inert format, is bound to be more cost effective, than blasting tons of anything to the sun! Recycling & reuseing if you can assure security to a extremly high level, is also an option.

Glassification only preserves the plutonium for further use. Grind the glass, disolve the plutonium, and then extract it from the solution.

If you want to get rid of plutonium, burn it in nuclear reactors as MOX (mixed uranium and plutonium oxide) fuel. Then it is done away with once and for all.

Well over 95% of people die in bed, and no-one has banned these very dangerous contraptions - yet!

I notice by your lat & long we are very close neighbours.

And don't forget the lives lost per year due to automobile crashes and cigarette smoking. Of course, those hazards don't threaten the existence of life on this planet, and those other things you mentioned are certainly a far greater threat in these terms.

Insofar as nuclear waste goes, I'd say putting the stuff in a subduction zone would probably be the safest approach in terms of safely transporting and disposing of it.

I thought of the subduction zone and then realised you would have to be careful because subduction zones vent by volcanic action. The waste would have to be dispersed enough to not out gas a toxic burp ( think Stinky Pete times Hiroshima). Granted that is a long ways down the road.

Is there any subduction zones that are not wet. As the water seems to be the cause of the volcanic action.

Just a thought

Brad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_Challenger

The prospect of spraying plutonium over a wide area in an uncontrolled fashion is too much for mankind to bear.

Good thinking! Now, all you have to do is find a way to make every rocket launch a 100 % no-fail venture. It would be sort of nasty if a few tons of nuclear waste came crashing back to Earth from a failed launch. Did you ever wonder how wide a dispersion of nuclear waste and wind-blown debris that would make? What are there, about 2,000 critical parts in a typical cargo rocket? (I'm basing my guess on my White Sands PG experience - there may be more critical parts in current cargo lift rockets).

What I dont understand is why everyone seems to assume that this waste, if transported into space, has to go on a large shuttle or rocket, or has to go into orbit. I should think that the cost would be significantly reduced if we only launched alot of small rockets with only a few grams of waste and once in space launched it well out of earths orbit (to minimize the risk of re-entry and to prevent rival countries from obtaining it for weapons). Also, if a small rocket failed, only a small amount of waste is released over a potentially very large area. Small rockets which can achieve altitudes of LEO are built by hobbiests for only a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. Imagine if these rockets were mass produced, lunched from a high altitude aircraft, utilizing the same propellant as Space Ship 1...

The cost per pound issue some people seem to have bothers me though. Do you honestly think NASA looks at how much weight they are going to launch and adjusts the fuel accordingly? Hell no, they fill the tanks and add or remove weight as needed. 1 Lb of plutonium or uranium costs the same as a 1 Lb wrench. NASA is willing to send a civilian into space for $1-2 million, I dont see why they cant send 200+ lbs of waste into space for the same price (remember, the weight of the astronaut plus his food and gear). That seems steep, but consider this: What do you think the annual operating cost for a waste site is going to be? Figure a minimum of 100 on site employees (security will have to work 3 shifts after all), with an average salary of $50k, plus benefits and retirement. Add utilities and other operating costs, and you're looking at a facillity that takes tens of millions of dollars a year to run. While that is still probably cheaper per pound, Its going to have to be manned and run indefinately. Shooting it into space is a one time cost.

And let us not forget, there are more car accidents everyday then there have ever been rocket accidents, and waste from Seabrook Power Plant in NH isnt going to magically appear in a waste dump in Nevada. No, I'm not going to pull actual stats out, use some common sense on that one.

Thank you for your post. I proposed the very same thing to President Jimmy Carter. I was 13 at the time and while I am fairly certain now, that my letter never actually reached the President, it still fills me with pride that I wrote our leader over these concerns. They were nice and sent me a bunch of literature on the environment and what we were doing to protect it, as well as adding me to the Secret Service watch list... Oh the memories...

On the proposal, of course the cost is high, the danger of spreading a material that even the smallest speck can horribly kill people is unacceptable, but the idea of using technology to cure some of the ills it causes still sparks the imagination.

I later went on to work for the Department of Energy, even pulling a stint in a Plutonium lab and saw the menace first hand. This is nothing I would consider flinging carelessly anywhere, let alone over our heads.

Out of the ideas proposed, I like the subduction zone and Thorium reactor ideas the best.

Rate of travel of the subduction zone might make this unfeasable. Just how long would the waste have to be contained before "swallowed" by tectonic action?

Seem to remember David Brin using this in one (or more) of his books...

One might feasibly give the waste a "head start" by boring some distance into the subduction zone and placing the waste there. I'm sure Halliburton would love such a contract.

Atta way Gentlemen. Now that's better. Persistance and positivity will produce solutions not phobia and negativity. We need a solution for our "oil" problems.

Keep it going!