BFR will have to be far more reliable than modern launch vehicles to succeed, but I've seen no evidence that it offers more reliability. It is still a multi-stage rocket subject to the same failure modes as other rockets.
the total amount of radioactive waste produced to date, and forecast to 2125, is about 4.9 million tonnes. After all waste has been packaged, it is estimated that the final volume would occupy a space similar to that of a large, modern soccer stadium.
The world is unlikely to run out of space to store that stuff, for a very long time.
Quote from: zhangmdev on 12/24/2017 12:28 pmthe total amount of radioactive waste produced to date, and forecast to 2125, is about 4.9 million tonnes. After all waste has been packaged, it is estimated that the final volume would occupy a space similar to that of a large, modern soccer stadium.It's similar in the states. The total U.S. nuclear waste from all commercial reactors would fill an American football field to a depth of 3 meters.What's more, the really hot stuff that stays radioactive for a thousand years, that would fill just the 1-yard line.
Quote from: Dave G on 12/24/2017 01:49 pmThe total U.S. nuclear waste from all commercial reactors would fill an American football field to a depth of 3 meters.What's more, the really hot stuff that stays radioactive for a thousand years, that would fill just the 1-yard line. Ive been looking for a graphic for that stat and I cant find it.
The total U.S. nuclear waste from all commercial reactors would fill an American football field to a depth of 3 meters.What's more, the really hot stuff that stays radioactive for a thousand years, that would fill just the 1-yard line.
Saying that modern reactors can burn waste from old reactors is false... There are concepts of new reactors.
Only Russia have working breeder reactor.
India and Japan both have working breeders and China has a small working prototype.
Quote from: Dave G on 12/24/2017 01:49 pmQuote from: zhangmdev on 12/24/2017 12:28 pmthe total amount of radioactive waste produced to date, and forecast to 2125, is about 4.9 million tonnes. After all waste has been packaged, it is estimated that the final volume would occupy a space similar to that of a large, modern soccer stadium.It's similar in the states. The total U.S. nuclear waste from all commercial reactors would fill an American football field to a depth of 3 meters.What's more, the really hot stuff that stays radioactive for a thousand years, that would fill just the 1-yard line. Ive been looking for a graphic for that stat and I cant find it. The show about nuclear power and how we'd better get off our asses and start investing in it again was an excellent one. IIRC the video was about how people who campaigned against nuclear power, are now realizing what a good low CO2 producing technology it is.So here is a different one about the energy density of nuclear power. Don't send it away by rocket, its far too valuable.
Quote from: llanitedave on 12/22/2017 01:10 amQuote from: Zed_Noir on 12/21/2017 10:40 pmQuote from: llanitedave on 12/21/2017 04:02 pmIf the political will to ship it by rail or truck to a remote underground site in the Nevada desert doesn't exist, how is anyone going to get approval to ship it to the populous and hurricane-prone Space Coast?Disagree. Transit of nuke material happens all the time everywhere. People only complain when said material stays in their area for a prolong period.When people understand that the nuke material is in transit to somewhere else. Then there will be less public resistance.It will be better to launch from Boca Chica for nuke waste shipments. We only have the NSF clubhouse to worry about. That hasn't been my experience. People only "tolerate" nuclear waste shipment through their area because they're: 1. Unusual, and 2. Unpublicized.That is your guess that it is the reason.Quote from: llanitedave on 12/22/2017 01:10 am[...] It doesn't really matter whether the waste is going their for permanent storage or temporary storage. [...][/qoute]It does matter a lot. Argument that it will last "million years" is at the head of every anti nuclear comment/article.Quote from: llanitedave on 12/22/2017 01:10 amAll that said, launching it into space is a terrible idea on every level, the ultimate non-starter. It ain't gonna happen, and rightly so.[/qoute]Every level? What that means. What's wrong with it ultimately being in far space? Launching is only risky moment, except we are talking launcher which is as reliable as planes and ships and we have planes flying with nuclear bombs, not waste, and ships using active nuclear reactor.This last piece smells like: I doesn't like this idea and I refuse to consider it based on my previous experience and knowledge from previous spaceflight age (there is no new age yet, but BFR will probably make it assuming it mets most of design goals).
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 12/21/2017 10:40 pmQuote from: llanitedave on 12/21/2017 04:02 pmIf the political will to ship it by rail or truck to a remote underground site in the Nevada desert doesn't exist, how is anyone going to get approval to ship it to the populous and hurricane-prone Space Coast?Disagree. Transit of nuke material happens all the time everywhere. People only complain when said material stays in their area for a prolong period.When people understand that the nuke material is in transit to somewhere else. Then there will be less public resistance.It will be better to launch from Boca Chica for nuke waste shipments. We only have the NSF clubhouse to worry about. That hasn't been my experience. People only "tolerate" nuclear waste shipment through their area because they're: 1. Unusual, and 2. Unpublicized.
Quote from: llanitedave on 12/21/2017 04:02 pmIf the political will to ship it by rail or truck to a remote underground site in the Nevada desert doesn't exist, how is anyone going to get approval to ship it to the populous and hurricane-prone Space Coast?Disagree. Transit of nuke material happens all the time everywhere. People only complain when said material stays in their area for a prolong period.When people understand that the nuke material is in transit to somewhere else. Then there will be less public resistance.It will be better to launch from Boca Chica for nuke waste shipments. We only have the NSF clubhouse to worry about.
If the political will to ship it by rail or truck to a remote underground site in the Nevada desert doesn't exist, how is anyone going to get approval to ship it to the populous and hurricane-prone Space Coast?
[...] It doesn't really matter whether the waste is going their for permanent storage or temporary storage. [...][/qoute]It does matter a lot. Argument that it will last "million years" is at the head of every anti nuclear comment/article.Quote from: llanitedave on 12/22/2017 01:10 amAll that said, launching it into space is a terrible idea on every level, the ultimate non-starter. It ain't gonna happen, and rightly so.[/qoute]Every level? What that means. What's wrong with it ultimately being in far space? Launching is only risky moment, except we are talking launcher which is as reliable as planes and ships and we have planes flying with nuclear bombs, not waste, and ships using active nuclear reactor.This last piece smells like: I doesn't like this idea and I refuse to consider it based on my previous experience and knowledge from previous spaceflight age (there is no new age yet, but BFR will probably make it assuming it mets most of design goals).
All that said, launching it into space is a terrible idea on every level, the ultimate non-starter. It ain't gonna happen, and rightly so.[/qoute]Every level? What that means. What's wrong with it ultimately being in far space? Launching is only risky moment, except we are talking launcher which is as reliable as planes and ships and we have planes flying with nuclear bombs, not waste, and ships using active nuclear reactor.This last piece smells like: I doesn't like this idea and I refuse to consider it based on my previous experience and knowledge from previous spaceflight age (there is no new age yet, but BFR will probably make it assuming it mets most of design goals).
Quote from: Hog on 12/24/2017 02:09 pmQuote from: Dave G on 12/24/2017 01:49 pmQuote from: zhangmdev on 12/24/2017 12:28 pmthe total amount of radioactive waste produced to date, and forecast to 2125, is about 4.9 million tonnes. After all waste has been packaged, it is estimated that the final volume would occupy a space similar to that of a large, modern soccer stadium.It's similar in the states. The total U.S. nuclear waste from all commercial reactors would fill an American football field to a depth of 3 meters.What's more, the really hot stuff that stays radioactive for a thousand years, that would fill just the 1-yard line. Ive been looking for a graphic for that stat and I cant find it. The show about nuclear power and how we'd better get off our asses and start investing in it again was an excellent one. IIRC the video was about how people who campaigned against nuclear power, are now realizing what a good low CO2 producing technology it is.So here is a different one about the energy density of nuclear power. Don't send it away by rocket, its far too valuable.What's so great about high energy density? The question is really about the cost of overall infrastructure vs the demand and storage capacities. The whole Earth ecosystem depends on the reliability of the sun, and stores energy in discrete local systems (mostly sugars and such) why don't we do the same, or equivalents?
Quote from: lamontagne on 12/25/2017 03:14 amQuote from: Hog on 12/24/2017 02:09 pmQuote from: Dave G on 12/24/2017 01:49 pmQuote from: zhangmdev on 12/24/2017 12:28 pmthe total amount of radioactive waste produced to date, and forecast to 2125, is about 4.9 million tonnes. After all waste has been packaged, it is estimated that the final volume would occupy a space similar to that of a large, modern soccer stadium.It's similar in the states. The total U.S. nuclear waste from all commercial reactors would fill an American football field to a depth of 3 meters.What's more, the really hot stuff that stays radioactive for a thousand years, that would fill just the 1-yard line. Ive been looking for a graphic for that stat and I cant find it. The show about nuclear power and how we'd better get off our asses and start investing in it again was an excellent one. IIRC the video was about how people who campaigned against nuclear power, are now realizing what a good low CO2 producing technology it is.So here is a different one about the energy density of nuclear power. Don't send it away by rocket, its far too valuable.What's so great about high energy density? The question is really about the cost of overall infrastructure vs the demand and storage capacities. The whole Earth ecosystem depends on the reliability of the sun, and stores energy in discrete local systems (mostly sugars and such) why don't we do the same, or equivalents?The high energy density of nuclear fuel compared to something like coal should be self explanatory.Uranium IS a local system that was produced by a star.The complete solution will be a multi faceted one, not just nuclear, not just the Sun. Clouds happen. The biggest issue IMO is the lack of informed knowledge amongst the population. I'd be more than happy to have a nuke powerplant in my backyard.
Do you think BFR could make space disposal of long-lived highly radioactive material economically viable. I am thinking of putting them on a trajectory with direct impact with Jupiter for instance (a place where conceivably we will never go).I found a source which saysQuoteThe question was investigated in the USA by NASA in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Because of the high cost of this option and the safety aspects associated with the risk of launch failure, it was abandoned.Could BFR solve both issues, cost and safety ?
The question was investigated in the USA by NASA in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Because of the high cost of this option and the safety aspects associated with the risk of launch failure, it was abandoned.
The biggest issue IMO is the lack of informed knowledge amongst the population. I'd be more than happy to have a nuke powerplant in my backyard.