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?
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.
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.
[...] 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: AC in NC on 12/21/2017 03:14 amI know I'm standing against a lot of expert opinion but I believe it can. And should. I'm of the opinion that there are a goodly number of coincident drivers that make this make much more sense than seems on the surface. I'm not sure that I would choose Jupiter over Venus though. Is there some potential need to keep Venus pristine that I'm overlooking?Sending nuclear waste makes into space makes no sense. Lets just turn your assumptions upside down, if space launch became so cheap as to enable the 4000 BFR launches needed to send the US nuclear waste to venus why would you bother instead of say colonising the entire solar system. Which is going to have the most economic and social value?Rough numbers100,000 tonnes nuclear waste, also assuming no packaging. 150 tonnes to LEO for BRF6 fights to refuel the BFS to send it to Venus.4000 flights
I know I'm standing against a lot of expert opinion but I believe it can. And should. I'm of the opinion that there are a goodly number of coincident drivers that make this make much more sense than seems on the surface. I'm not sure that I would choose Jupiter over Venus though. Is there some potential need to keep Venus pristine that I'm overlooking?
It will be better to launch from Boca Chica for nuke waste shipments. We only have the NSF clubhouse to worry about.
Quote from: hektor on 12/20/2017 03:33 pmThat is why I was asking the question about the BFR. It will be extremely reliable .... What is the basis for this assertion? No orbital launch vehicle, ever, has proven to have a better than roughly 1-2% failure rate. a 2% failure rate among 4,000 BFR launches is 80 nuclear disasters, any one of which could under worst-case conditions pollute a large area of the planet with radioactive materials. - Ed Kyle
That is why I was asking the question about the BFR. It will be extremely reliable ....
There never was launch system fully and rapidly reusable. That's new game. Based on old reliability standards this idea it's clearly NO GO. But if there is fleet of 3 BFSs and each of them is doing 100 flights/year in few years (after BFR starts flying) we will have reliability data like we never had before.And since it will be launched wherever launch trajectory can be adjusted to political likes.
I've heard that Australia was building breeder reactors and obtaining nuclear waste to burn in them. From what I have read it reduces waste to about 10% of what it was.
Since breeder reactors on a closed fuel cycle would use nearly all of the actinides fed into them as fuel, their fuel requirements would be reduced by a factor of about 100. The volume of waste they generate would be reduced by a factor of about 100 as well.
I never understood why the Navy didn't use breeder reactors on subs and burn up the spent waste fuel rods.
That being said, if this is true, then there may not be a need to send into space.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 12/22/2017 05:35 pmQuote from: hektor on 12/20/2017 03:33 pmThat is why I was asking the question about the BFR. It will be extremely reliable .... What is the basis for this assertion? No orbital launch vehicle, ever, has proven to have a better than roughly 1-2% failure rate. a 2% failure rate among 4,000 BFR launches is 80 nuclear disasters, any one of which could under worst-case conditions pollute a large area of the planet with radioactive materials. - Ed Kyle If the launch failure rate of BFR is of this order of magnitude, then Elon's plan to relocate one million people on Mars would literally result in thousands of deaths (and the launch is only one small part of the BFR trip to Mars). My question about injecting nuclear waste on a collision course with Jupiter was based on the assumption that the BFR is more reliable by a few orders of magnitude than existing launchers.So let me rephrase my question : if the reliability performance of the BFR is such that it makes Elon Musk's Mars plans of mass migration executable, do you think the same launcher could be used to put high activity, long duration nuclear waste on collision course with Jupiter ?
I've heard that Australia was building breeder reactors and obtaining nuclear waste to burn in them.
Only Russia have working breeder reactor.Building nuclear reactors in Australia is prohibited by law.
Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 62,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel.
For FY18, DOE has requested $120 million and the NRC $30 million[8] from Congress to continue licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain Repository.
If the launch failure rate of BFR is of this order of magnitude, then Elon's plan to relocate one million people on Mars would literally result in thousands of deaths (and the launch is only one small part of the BFR trip to Mars).
The biggest risk is not taking any risk... In a world that changing really quickly, the only strategy that is guaranteed to fail is not taking risks.
IMHO the best solution for nuclear waste is to burn it in an LFTR. This way you get rid of it and produce electricity and valuable by-products. from: http://flibe-energy.com/lftr/"LFTR technology can also be used to consume the remaining fissile material available in spent nuclear fuel stockpiles around the world and to extract and resell many of the other valuable fission byproducts that are currently deemed hazardous waste in their current spent fuel rod form. The U.S. nuclear industry has already allocated $25 billion for storage or reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and the world currently has over 340,000 tonnes of spent LWR fuel with enough usable fissile material to start one 100 MWe LFTR per day for 93 years. (A 100 MW LFTR requires 100 kg of fissile material (U-233, U-235, or Pu-239) as an initial fissile charge to begin the thorium-to-uranium breeding cycle)."