It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yes there are some interesting ideas for the future like the mass driver, but we're not there yet. I frankly have no idea how they are going to safely dispose of waste for tens of thousands of years, other than space disposal.
Originally posted by MACchine
I did not know that GOOD IDEAS !!!
I read about that.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
With recent breakthroughs in nanofiber technology a space elevator is now in development. This could be a very cost effective way of disposing of the nuclear waste.
A satellite will sit in geosynchronous orbit as the space end and a small diameter cable made up incredibly strong nanofibers will connect to a base on the surface. The base will most likely be floating platform in the Gulf of Mexico, for some reason they don't want it on land.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Any other method I've heard, and 10,000 years from now it seems like it could show up somewhere to poison our descendants.edit on 18-6-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I read about that.
Originally posted by AGWskeptic
With recent breakthroughs in nanofiber technology a space elevator is now in development. This could be a very cost effective way of disposing of the nuclear waste.
A satellite will sit in geosynchronous orbit as the space end and a small diameter cable made up incredibly strong nanofibers will connect to a base on the surface. The base will most likely be floating platform in the Gulf of Mexico, for some reason they don't want it on land.
NASA Claims Space Elevator Feasible by 2100
It's kind of hard to predict things so far into the future, so I'm not sure if they couldn't be off by a lot and it really won't be done until 2200. But for the sake of discussion, assume 2100 as NASA claims.
What will we do between now and 2100?
That's a long time to have used fuel pools sitting around like at Fukushima, though they will be cooler by then .
But if the space elevator works, it will be a huge help to the economics of space disposal of nuclear waste, however it will still take a considerable amount of fuel to get the payload from the space elevator out of Earth's gravity, to reach the sun, though far less than launching from the surface.
Originally posted by Arbitrageur
snip
Here's a thread someone just made on that topic:
Worse than Fukushima Daiichi?
So the other thread does have a link starting off with "three hundred miles...". But it's a pretty crappy thread, yours is better, but why all the caps?
TSURUGA, Japan — Three hundred miles southwest of Fukushima, at a nuclear reactor perched on the slopes of this rustic peninsula, engineers are engaged in another precarious struggle.
snip
Originally posted by InFriNiTee
Originally posted by gremlin2011
this is seriously messed up! why cant the fuel be sent to the sun???
The idea of launching nuke waste into space would work, if it just weren't for the astronomical cost! Nuclear power is fairly cheap the way it is. Include the riddance of waste, and the cost will increase to the point of making it too expensive to operate.edit on 18-6-2011 by InFriNiTee because: (no reason given)
Do you have a different opinion?
Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
Thank you very much for the assessment, it is appreciated.
Originally posted by gremlin2011
this is seriously messed up! why cant the fuel be sent to the sun???
Originally posted by Homedawg
The japs have always been sneaky and borderline insane...this stuff just proves it...."saving face" my a*s
Monju is a fast breeder reactor that uses sodium as coolant, which catches on fire on contact with air. It uses MOX-fuel. 3.3-tonne, 12-meter "In‐Vessel Transfer Machine" fell into the reactor vessel on August 26, 2010. The manager at the plant in charge of fuel exchange committed suicide in February this year.
Ah so that's what happened. Well perhaps I was a bit harsh, sorry about that, but at least you realize that doesn't look too good for an OP to not have any comments, and don't plan to repeat it, though I don't understand why if you edited the OP, you didn't just put your OP commentary there? Anyway, water under the bridge.
Originally posted by jadedANDcynical
Admittedly, that post was clumsily done and I will probably restrict myself from beginning a thread from my iphone in the future
Yes we do. And I won't be surprised if more are on the way.
So we have another suicide attributable to this plant.