we're talking about 250,000 tons of nuclear waste. It takes takes about $15,000 per kilogram to get something to even low earth orbit (getting something to the sun takes about 3 times more energy).
So at this calculation, in order to get all current nuclear waste just out to space where it doesnt fall on our heads, you're looking at a cost of $3.4 trillion. And that's not even talking about how sending a rocket to space every time you need to change the rods in your reactor is probably not part of the "environmentally friendly" angle that people tout about going nuclear
One of the two ever commercial breeder reactors in the US melted down outside Detroit, which might have something to do with there not being any more.
But the breeder reactor thing seems to be bizarre Reddit lore that has almost no connection to reality. The hype is based on a non-breeder research reactor that showed that it's theoretically possible to build a reactor with a breeder cycle that transmutes some the waste with the longest half-life into waste with a shorter half-life. As far as I know, no such reactor has been designed, proposed, or built.
In real life, there are only two reasons why a breeder reactor has ever been built:
To reprocess weapons-grade plutonium into nuclear fuel as part of an arms control treaty
To supplement expensive enriched uranium fuel with cheap depleted uranium (which was prevalent due to the massive production of nuclear weapons that would later necessitate #1)
That's the price of a rocket right now, I have no doubt that earth to space transportations can get safer and cheaper. We don't have to send nuclear waste at this present moment, we can wait.
You can't invent around how much energy it takes to get something to space. I'll concede that maybe a space elevator would do the trick, but I'd rather not hang my hopes on science fiction becoming true to make an energy proposal work
Rather than saying that we will find a way to reduce the energy needed, I meant that we'll find a better vehicle with which to bring shit into space. Be it a space elevator, a better space shuttle, reusable rockets and/or better fuel. You can reduce the launch cost without decreasing the energy cost.
I don't know how much you're just playing Devil's Advocate here, but at some point you have to realize you're just spitballing utopian futurist ideas to solve the problems that your real-life ideas are causing
deleted by creator
same shit applies for any energy source. they mine indigenous land for components of solar and wind energy, hydropower has sunk indigenous land
maybe the problem is how power is structured, not the end technology extracted materials end up in
deleted by creator
I mean isn't all land technically someone's indiginous land?
deleted by creator
this is probably just me being stupid but why don't we like put it in a rocket and launch it towards the sun
deleted by creator
fireworks
The wildlife gets neat
we're talking about 250,000 tons of nuclear waste. It takes takes about $15,000 per kilogram to get something to even low earth orbit (getting something to the sun takes about 3 times more energy). So at this calculation, in order to get all current nuclear waste just out to space where it doesnt fall on our heads, you're looking at a cost of $3.4 trillion. And that's not even talking about how sending a rocket to space every time you need to change the rods in your reactor is probably not part of the "environmentally friendly" angle that people tout about going nuclear
Isn't there something called like a Mulching Reactor that ends up eating its own spent fuel?
edit: Breeder reactor, no idea where I got "Mulching" from, maybe because thats what some lawnmowers do to get rid of their waste?
One of the two ever commercial breeder reactors in the US melted down outside Detroit, which might have something to do with there not being any more.
But the breeder reactor thing seems to be bizarre Reddit lore that has almost no connection to reality. The hype is based on a non-breeder research reactor that showed that it's theoretically possible to build a reactor with a breeder cycle that transmutes some the waste with the longest half-life into waste with a shorter half-life. As far as I know, no such reactor has been designed, proposed, or built.
In real life, there are only two reasons why a breeder reactor has ever been built:
That's the price of a rocket right now, I have no doubt that earth to space transportations can get safer and cheaper. We don't have to send nuclear waste at this present moment, we can wait.
You can't invent around how much energy it takes to get something to space. I'll concede that maybe a space elevator would do the trick, but I'd rather not hang my hopes on science fiction becoming true to make an energy proposal work
Rather than saying that we will find a way to reduce the energy needed, I meant that we'll find a better vehicle with which to bring shit into space. Be it a space elevator, a better space shuttle, reusable rockets and/or better fuel. You can reduce the launch cost without decreasing the energy cost.
I don't know how much you're just playing Devil's Advocate here, but at some point you have to realize you're just spitballing utopian futurist ideas to solve the problems that your real-life ideas are causing
Utopian futurist ideas like making better space travel?
i mean that's fair but it'd probably be the best fireworks show ever