Nuclear Disposal / General Science and Electronics / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Science and Electronics

« Previous topic | Next topic »

Nuclear Disposal

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Sulaiman

Wed Jan 29 2014, 11:51AM

Registered Member #162 Joined: Mon Feb 13 2006, 10:25AM
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3140

Prompted by the Fukushima thread in General Chatting,
and underground thermonuclear weapons testing,

is it feasible to bury radioactive waste in a deep hole and detonate a nuke in the waste to reduce the nett pollution?

Thomas W

Wed Jan 29 2014, 01:11PM

Registered Member #3324 Joined: Sun Oct 17 2010, 06:57PM
Location:
Posts: 1276

Surely that is more likely to spread the waste out, potentially into the water table ect.

I'm no expert, but it just does not sound like a great idea... unless you have something to back it up?

Patrick

Wed Jan 29 2014, 01:25PM

Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639

in nevada and utah here in the US, i think the DoD found that even a simple nuclear weapon broke the rock strata, With the persistent long lived isotopes following water below it, then the radiation "layer" seems to rise above and below this rock strata through out the year...

so, for this ad other reasons, i would generally say no.

Dr. Slack

Wed Jan 29 2014, 01:41PM

Registered Member #72 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 08:29AM
Location: UK St. Albans
Posts: 1659

Were you hoping that the intense radiation would transmute the waste into something stable or shorter lived, and/or perhaps melt it and fuse it with the inside of the cavern it had just explosively created? It ought to be possible to compute whether the first makes sense, and the second sounds like a great idea, if you say it quick.

However, I think I'll go with the "f'ing great bang would probably fracture the surrounding rocks and connect everything to the water table" theory. I can't think of any rock stratum where giving it a good kicking would be better than just drilling carefully into it and then leaving it well alone. Doesn't the explosion cavern tend to collapse after a while, further compromising any tendency that stuff might have to stay put?

Now, if you could just drill a hole deep enough into where tectonic plates were being subducted, and try to tuck the stuff in there, it would be drawn down into the mantle never to reappear for squintillions of years, but you might have to replace the end of your drill bit quite often.

Proud Mary

Wed Jan 29 2014, 01:44PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Soviet underground tests on Novaya Zemlya vented into the atmosphere on a number of occasions.

"During an underground test on 14 October 1969, three devices were exploded in two tunnels with a total yield of 540 kt. In his Database of radiological incidents and related events, Robert Johnston explains how a gas plume burst from the surface near one of the tunnels about one hour after the test. Several hundred test personnel were in the vicinity and were not evacuated until up to one hour later. On 24 October those most seriously exposed were transported to Moscow for examination and treatment. Over 80 people received doses of 40 to 80 rad.

On 12 September 1973, four nuclear devices with a total yield of 4.2 Mt were detonated on the northernmost island. The explosion had a seismic magnitude of 6.97 and triggered an 80 million-ton rockslide that blocked two glacial streams and created a two kilometre-long lake.

Venting at Novaya Zemlya in 1987 reportedly released fission products throughout Sweden, writes Peter Gizewski in Military Activity and Environmental Security: The Case of Radioactivity in the Arctic. The venting produced the highest levels recorded in northern Sweden in 15 years, apart from the Chernobyl incident. Three years later, a second venting produced similar results.

A 1993 study of Novaya Zemlyaâ€™s topography by John Matzko, Physical environment of the underground nuclear test site on Novaya Zemlya, Russia, revealed that at least one test site had severe leakage due to cracks in the rock formations. There have been indications that several tests caused a significant amount of leakage."

See also. Skorve, J, Megaton nuclear underground tests and catastrophic events on Novaya Zemlya: a satellite study Norwegian Institute of International Affairs.

,d.bGQ

Uspring

Wed Jan 29 2014, 01:50PM

Registered Member #3988 Joined: Thu Jul 07 2011, 03:25PM
Location:
Posts: 711

Waste from fission consists of long lived (10000nds of years) isotopes e.g. 239Pu and shorter living (100s of years) fission fragments, which account for almost all activity. A nuclear explosion won't do anything to the latter but might fission some of the Pu.
If instead the waste is processed by separating the Pu from the rest it is possible to burn the Pu up in a reactor.

There is a security problem with transporting or storing Pu, though. It can be readily used in building a bomb. Lowly enriched Uranium, as used in reactors, cannot be made to explode unless you further enrich it. That requires big plants with lots of centrifuges.

Patrick

Wed Jan 29 2014, 02:36PM

Registered Member #2431 Joined: Tue Oct 13 2009, 09:47PM
Location: Chico, CA. USA
Posts: 5639

We need a star-trek like understanding to modifiy nuclear chemistry.

Ash Small

Wed Jan 29 2014, 02:46PM

Registered Member #3414 Joined: Sun Nov 14 2010, 05:05PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4245

Patrick wrote ...

We need a star-trek like understanding to modifiy nuclear chemistry.

We just need a bit more investment in fusion technology. No radioactive waste, except the reactor linings themselves. No chance of a 'runaway reaction', as power needs to be supplied to get the fusion process going, and to maintain it (no power in=no fusion).

All the research at the moment is into materials for the reactor linings, as these require regular replacement, and become radioactive in use. Ideally something is required where the resulting product has a short half-life, so therefore doesn't require long term storage.

Conundrum

Wed Jan 29 2014, 10:06PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

I assume launching the waste out of the Solar System as part of a meteor shield for an Orion is out of the question?

Proud Mary

Wed Jan 29 2014, 10:35PM

Registered Member #543 Joined: Tue Feb 20 2007, 04:26PM
Location: UK
Posts: 4992

Conundrum wrote ...

I assume launching the waste out of the Solar System as part of a meteor shield for an Orion is out of the question?

Nuclear waste disposal in outer space has been suggested for decades, with varying degrees of credibility and economy:

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob