Nuclear Power? (3 Viewers)

[SnowFox]

Launch waste into space, wont affect anyone will it?

 

[Ancly]

what if the rocket explodes 20km up and showers us all in radioactive waste?

didnt think that through did you

plus rockets are insanely expensive with small payloads

plus what if the waste somehow reentered the atmosphere?

 

[Kolefax]

which is why at the moment its not a feasible method of disposing of nuclear waste.

 

[moll.]

what if the rocket explodes 20km up and showers us all in radioactive waste?

didnt think that through did you

plus rockets are insanely expensive with small payloads

plus what if the waste somehow reentered the atmosphere?

A) Save up the waste for one big payload into outer space.
B) Very few rockets explode mid-air.
C) If the man in charge has half a brain, he can put it past the geosynchronous orbit line, thereby garuanteeing that it will never re-enter Earth's atmosphere, ceteris parabis.
D) Cost of rockets varies, but they are getting progressively cheaper with better technology, competition and economies of scale. It would be an unmanned mission, which means only a fraction of the cost, and the benefits of having it out of the way may outweigh any monetary costs.

 

[moll.]

They are fairly safe. I'm pretty sure there is a nuclear reactor over at Lucas Heights. Thats where we get radio isotopes.

The reactor at Lucas Heights is tiny. Barely enough radioactive material is produced there to power the Menai district. It's only used for medical and research purposes.

 

[Ancly]

which is why at the moment its not a feasible method of disposing of nuclear waste.

Storage is s very reasonable method of dealing with waste atm.

A) Save up the waste for one big payload into outer space.
B) Very few rockets explode mid-air.
C) If the man in charge has half a brain, he can put it past the geosynchronous orbit line, thereby garuanteeing that it will never re-enter Earth's atmosphere, ceteris parabis.
D) Cost of rockets varies, but they are getting progressively cheaper with better technology, competition and economies of scale. It would be an unmanned mission, which means only a fraction of the cost, and the benefits of having it out of the way may outweigh any monetary costs.

1. lol like i said rockets have comparitively small payloads.
2. Yeah and if one of those very few do then the result would be pretty bad yeah?
3. I realise this, being a rocket scientist and all. What if the waste was somehow turned around (impact with asteroid or something) and re-entered the earths atmosphere? Pretty bad yeah?
4. Rockets are expensive any way you look at it. Spending massive amounts of money shooting rockets into space to remove waste is not going to help Nuclear powers case from an economic p.o.v

 

[Kwayera]

Thorium reactors, anyone?