Hopefully my last post got the point across that long-term, safe, relatively cheap, and low maintenance solutions to where to put nuclear waste is something that most governments want and need. In fact I'd say it's one of the most crucial issues when thinking about nuclear energy as a long-term energy source
Several long term storage solutions have already been thought of, several have been put into practice, others... not so much. Today I'd like to focus specifically on one that's definitely been thought of a lot - space disposal.
The idea seems sound; put nuclear waste on a rocket, and jet it into the Sun, or onto the Moon, or even just on a random trajectory into the vast emptiness of space. It seemed like such an easy way out that companies started researching into the possibilities, Boeing had a serious look in the 1980s into investing in space disposal but ultimately decided it wasn't worth it. (Cospar Information Bulletin, 1980).
Why? Well not because it isn't possible, it very much is, as referenced in this NASA report. It's just very expensive to go to space. It costs $20,000/kg to send payloads into orbit, and obviously sending them beyond orbit, or with more specific targets than just out of Earth the added energy and precision would cost even more. A fun comparison is to inter-continental flight, which usually costs about $12/kg! Technology has not really come far enough yet to reduce this by too much (Coopersmith, 2011).
Some however argue that this price could be reduced. Combining types of propulsion, or even changing types of propulsion could reduce price. We could ditch the old format of space launch involving large chemical rockets and instead try developing technologies such as beamed energy propulsion (basically lasers), magnetic levitation or even a space elevator where a tether attached to a satellite could carry the payload off earth (Coopersmith, 2011). Unfortunately these ideas so far only exist as concepts. Two promising ideas that already exist are solar panels, and Elon Musk's SpaceX program.
Solar panels could be installed on the 'spaceship' carrying the waste so that once its left orbit, it can continue to generate power to steer the rocket. One low-carbon energy supporting another low-carbon energy (almost called them both renewable there for a second!) (Priest et al., 1980).
SpaceX for those of you who don't know/have been living under a rock is renowned capitalist Elon Musk's space flight project. And while the goal of SpaceX is actually to make commercial flight more accessible (sorry renowned capitalist Richard Branson your $250,000 tickets to only *shudder* go suborbital don't cut it). It could also bring down the price of sending waste into orbit. It does this by reusing the rockets involved (Seedhouse, 2013). People suggest that this could bring the price down to as low as $200/kg (Coopersmith, 2011), but I guess only time will tell.
Something I'd like to consider is the ethics of sending our waste into space. It might seem like the universe is gigantic, but all our waste will go somewhere. Some would say that the chances are that our waste once jettisoned will never impact anywhere, will either float in nothingness or be caught in some lifeless rock's orbit and never be thought of by anyone again is very high to almost certain. But, I firmly believe that there is life out there in the universe, and waste that's going to be radioactive for the next million years potentially has a chance, yes maybe a minute chance, but a chance nonetheless of meeting that life. And I think it'd be irresponsible of us to not consider how maybe if we can find an Earthly solution to our waste issue, maybe we should keep our dirty (nuclear) rubbish to ourselves rather than sending potentially life-threatening toxic waste out into the universe.
So my final verdict on the space disposal of nuclear waste is for now, still a firm nope, but I do wish the best of luck to the likes of Elon Musk in developing commercial space flight, so maybe we can start sending Flat-Earthers one-by-one into orbit until my Facebook feed is no longer clogged up with their gibberish.
Interesting Links:
A nice breakdown of the different bazillionaires throwing obscene amounts of money so that at some point in the future other (slight less bazilliony) bazillionaires will throw obscene amounts of money at them http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/04/technology/billionaire-space-race/index.html
Lovely group you can join if you want a genuine insight into the Flat-Earther way of life (be warned, No Trolling): https://www.facebook.com/groups/1538327313126456/?ref=br_rs
This guy I think should be the first person on one of Musk's flights: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/21/this-man-is-about-to-launch-himself-in-his-homemade-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat/?utm_term=.5f656e38fde7
Several long term storage solutions have already been thought of, several have been put into practice, others... not so much. Today I'd like to focus specifically on one that's definitely been thought of a lot - space disposal.
The idea seems sound; put nuclear waste on a rocket, and jet it into the Sun, or onto the Moon, or even just on a random trajectory into the vast emptiness of space. It seemed like such an easy way out that companies started researching into the possibilities, Boeing had a serious look in the 1980s into investing in space disposal but ultimately decided it wasn't worth it. (Cospar Information Bulletin, 1980).
Why? Well not because it isn't possible, it very much is, as referenced in this NASA report. It's just very expensive to go to space. It costs $20,000/kg to send payloads into orbit, and obviously sending them beyond orbit, or with more specific targets than just out of Earth the added energy and precision would cost even more. A fun comparison is to inter-continental flight, which usually costs about $12/kg! Technology has not really come far enough yet to reduce this by too much (Coopersmith, 2011).
Some however argue that this price could be reduced. Combining types of propulsion, or even changing types of propulsion could reduce price. We could ditch the old format of space launch involving large chemical rockets and instead try developing technologies such as beamed energy propulsion (basically lasers), magnetic levitation or even a space elevator where a tether attached to a satellite could carry the payload off earth (Coopersmith, 2011). Unfortunately these ideas so far only exist as concepts. Two promising ideas that already exist are solar panels, and Elon Musk's SpaceX program.
Solar panels could be installed on the 'spaceship' carrying the waste so that once its left orbit, it can continue to generate power to steer the rocket. One low-carbon energy supporting another low-carbon energy (almost called them both renewable there for a second!) (Priest et al., 1980).
SpaceX for those of you who don't know/have been living under a rock is renowned capitalist Elon Musk's space flight project. And while the goal of SpaceX is actually to make commercial flight more accessible (sorry renowned capitalist Richard Branson your $250,000 tickets to only *shudder* go suborbital don't cut it). It could also bring down the price of sending waste into orbit. It does this by reusing the rockets involved (Seedhouse, 2013). People suggest that this could bring the price down to as low as $200/kg (Coopersmith, 2011), but I guess only time will tell.
Something I'd like to consider is the ethics of sending our waste into space. It might seem like the universe is gigantic, but all our waste will go somewhere. Some would say that the chances are that our waste once jettisoned will never impact anywhere, will either float in nothingness or be caught in some lifeless rock's orbit and never be thought of by anyone again is very high to almost certain. But, I firmly believe that there is life out there in the universe, and waste that's going to be radioactive for the next million years potentially has a chance, yes maybe a minute chance, but a chance nonetheless of meeting that life. And I think it'd be irresponsible of us to not consider how maybe if we can find an Earthly solution to our waste issue, maybe we should keep our dirty (nuclear) rubbish to ourselves rather than sending potentially life-threatening toxic waste out into the universe.
So my final verdict on the space disposal of nuclear waste is for now, still a firm nope, but I do wish the best of luck to the likes of Elon Musk in developing commercial space flight, so maybe we can start sending Flat-Earthers one-by-one into orbit until my Facebook feed is no longer clogged up with their gibberish.
Interesting Links:
A nice breakdown of the different bazillionaires throwing obscene amounts of money so that at some point in the future other (slight less bazilliony) bazillionaires will throw obscene amounts of money at them http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/04/technology/billionaire-space-race/index.html
Lovely group you can join if you want a genuine insight into the Flat-Earther way of life (be warned, No Trolling): https://www.facebook.com/groups/1538327313126456/?ref=br_rs
This guy I think should be the first person on one of Musk's flights: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/11/21/this-man-is-about-to-launch-himself-in-his-homemade-rocket-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat/?utm_term=.5f656e38fde7
Comments
Post a Comment