Thread 106259559

What do you do with the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants?

>>106259559 (OP)
Nothing.
It's a non-issue.
/thread

>>106259559 (OP)
Repurpose it for use in dirty bombs for the upcoming anti-technology jihad.

eat it
But we certainly shouldn't let thirdies have or store their waste like this >>106259559 (OP)

>>106259648
spbp

Actual /thread

What would happen if I dunked my head in one of those?

>>106259559 (OP)
Store it deep underground in concrete facilities until you can find a use for it.

>>106259648
hey glowie

>>106259559 (OP)
put it back where it came from

>>106259648
hey glowie
how about you repurpose your mouth to suck my cock?

If we were smart we'd repurpose it as fuel in thorium reactors. But that's not really cost effective so lets just bury it somewhere and pretend it's gone

>>106259559 (OP)
Send it to India. Whatever is in those barrels cannot be worse than the sludge flowing in the rivers they bathe in.

>>106259559 (OP)
Turn it into glass.
https://physicsworld.com/a/a-glassy-solution-to-nuclear-waste/

>>106259559 (OP)
throw it in the ocean

>>106259559 (OP)
make snacks for gentile children

>>106259559 (OP)
just bury it

The type of waste in your photo? Just store it for a number of years until the gamma radiation is no more then dispose of it responsibly like any other trash. Alpha and beta are only dangerous if ingested.

>>106259559 (OP)
Maybe eventually there'll be a way to efficiently reuse it, but in the meantime I don't understand the
>NOOOOOOOOOOOO WE CAN'T JUST BURY IT
argument normies and environmentalists always bring up. It's like these people have never seen a world map. Bros, we have a 3,200 square mile missile range in New Mexico alone, we can find a place to bury it where it won't bother anyone.

>>106259674
>>106259697
>glowies calling others glowies
Of course.

give it to me

>pull extremely radioactive material out of the ground
>"what do we do with the significantly less radioactive leftovers?"

>>106259559 (OP)
throw it into a modified uranium centrifuge and turn it into MOX fuel, use that in fast reactors, and your "waste" will magically turn into more plutonium with a few minor side products that are by far not as dangerous as the initial waste.
>>106259673
they literally already have a use for it, but they don't want to turn it into plutonium because "that could be used for hecking nuclear weapons!"
no shit, and so can uranium. they still use that though, and only let depleted uranium collect dust or leak into the environment
>>106260271
significantly more radioactive and more dangerous because its enriched and not trapped in random yellow minerals anymore
you refine it to plutonium and mix that with the other uranium to create MOX fuel (mixed oxide fuel), just use fucking fast reactors, THEY EXIST AND THEY ARE PROFITABLE, THE NUCLEAR WASTE IS LITERALLY FREE TO USE AND COSTS LESS TO REFINE, THAN IT TAKES TO MINE/PROCESS URANIUM

>>106260194
no state in the US wants to be the nation's nuclear waste dump, nevada succesfully stopped yucca mountain after they characterized it as the "screw nevada" bill.

The foreseeable end game of garbage management is to throw it into the sun.

>>106260271
>Dig up millions of tons doing mineral extraction
>Extract out the radioactive isotopes when refining anyhow
>get a few barrels of radioactive waste
>spend it
>get even fewer barrels
>Struggle with the idea of either putting it back or just sealing it in whatever the science says is solid enough to not get ground seepage in the current continental drift cycle

>>106259559 (OP)
either refine it back into fissile material or make bullets and armor plates out of it.

>>106260271
crash trains into it for "testing" because it's heckin denserino

>>106261305
>just sealing it in whatever the science says is solid enough to not get ground seepage in the current continental drift cycle
turns out normal ass concrete is perfectly sufficient

>>106259559 (OP)
You bury it underground between the province of Naples and the province of Caserta.

>>106261361
Normal concrete isn't waterproof, and allows water to leech. And it needs to be buried on something that do not lead directly to groundwater, which is why stable mountain roots are the preferred idea.

>>106259616
can't /thread yourself buddy, those are the rules.

>>106261392
ok fine, normal-ass "modern" concrete that is the defacto default that is a little closer to asphalt and gets painted/sealed after.

>>106259559 (OP)
Mix it with my whiskey.

humanity hasnt built a structure that can withstand natural disasters yet you morons think you can keep a mine of horrors under control for whats the half life of the items we're discussing?

>>106259559 (OP)
Put it in a museum

>>106259668
It would be very painful.

You reprocess it because most of it is usable fuel.

>wait 500 years
>someone builds a space elevator
>dig up the garbage and gently push it towards the sun
>PROFIT
Also if we manage to blow ourselves up before that happens it's not our problem anymore

>>106260194
We already have a place but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) kept it from being implemented. It's in the middle of nowhere but people in Nevada, who live nowhere near the site, were told it would somehow harm them. They even invented a fake county to help them and Harry Reid, thwart using it storage facility.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullfrog_County%2C_Nevada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

>>106259559 (OP)
Throw it into a volcano.
Shoot it into the sun.
Chuck it out into space.

>>106261852
That's one of the concerns they tried to address in site plans in case civilization collapsed, they wanted there to be a way to keep new civilizations that arise from accidentally digging up the waste and harming themselves. The assumption is that current languages would be lost and the new civilizations would have their own new languages.

>>106261904
That possibility is so far in the future that it won't be dangerous unless they're breaking open and eating the contents of the casks, in which case those rock eating fucks deserve to die anyway.

People worry way too much about nuclear waste and nowhere enough about forever chemicals.

PFAS will kill people for millions of years.
And we just dump it into the environment.

>>106261904
>The assumption is that current languages would be lost and the new civilizations would have their own new languages.
The reality is the people most likely to dig up anything with radioactive symbols on it are dumb thirdworlders who can't read anyway. That's what the ISO 21482 was invented for, pictographs showing that it is dangerous. While there's been no cases of it so far, I bet you it will not stop them looting shit for scrap metal.

>Nuclear energy and waste management technology magically stopped progressing after the 1950's
Damn, someone tell Japan, France, South Korea and other countries that use nuclear they're in danger!

>>106261904
I think all it takes is the pumps to stop working and they will have properly contaminated ground water for the next 24.000 years

>>106261892
Roundhouse kick it into a black hole
Slap it into oblivion
Drain it into the swamp

>>106261892
just shoot extremely dense metals and gallons of heavy water into space lol

>>106259559 (OP)
Me personally?
I usually avoid it.
Not difficult due to government regulations and what-not.

>>106261708
the half life is thousands of years or something, that's why they bury it in the ground and hope it doesn't leak into the ground and find its way to the surface

>>106259559 (OP)
>What do you do with the radioactive waste
store it in a pool of water next to the reactor and forget about it. when the reactor explodes it will crack the pool open and you'll have to dump water on it continuously until you have 5000 water tanks of radioactive water as in the fukushima scenario.

>>106259559 (OP)
acquire superpowers

>>106259820
Substantial amounts of nuclear power "waste" has been discarded in barrels thrown into the ocean.
The reality is that that "waste" actually contains highly valuable minerals.

>>106259720
>we
Don't bundle me in with anyone below a 130 IQ.

>>106262111
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4hXR6jBHfc

>>106260329
>plutonium
Is that is?
Yeah... it's "waste." Wasteful to discard, that is...

>>106259559 (OP)
dump it in the middle of the atlantic

it just werks

>>106261257
Don't think so.
Even your excrement contains valuable minerals.
Just because it is useless to you doesn't mean an indian can't make prosperous and productive use of it.

>>106261892
>Throw it into a volcano.
oh boy, uranium particulates
>Shoot it into the sun.
>Chuck it out into space.
oh boy, high altitude uranium particulates

>>106262123
You realize it generates a valuable amount of heat that can be used for a variety of purposes?

>>106259559 (OP)
They literally store it deep underground, it's not cheap endeavor too. You also have to pray there wont be earthquake one day. Still better than trowing it into ocean like in the past.

isnt nuclear waste literally about as radioactive as bananas (which are surprisingly radioactive themselves but still edible)

>>106262282
That's a great idea.
I just got back from throwing my car batteries into the ocean.

>>106262235
Those barrels mostly contain things like gloves and lab coats people working with nuclear materials wear.
They are only slightly radioactive and any radioactive material in there have half lives in the order of decades at most.

It's only the spent fuel rods that contain the trans-uranics that can have very long half lives and that might be very useful in the future.
But those get treated very differently from the low level radioactive waste.

>>106262331
depends on your definition. there's a whole lot of metal that just shouldn't be used for cutlery, but also a bunch of stuff that's actually hot

>>106262328
None of those options are good since we should actually be figuring out how to use those rare isotopes rather than simply discarding them.

>>106262333
it's what the french used to do with it. again, just werks.

>>106262333
thank you sir

t. electric eel

why do americans are so afraid of nuclear power yet threaden to nuclear bomb everyone every 10 minutes as if they wont suffer fallout as well?

>>106262348
they're not that precious. you know why uranium mining is only done in like two places? because it's fucking pick-it-off-the-ground common

>>106262363
it's mostly coping about how their nuclear program is dead. (want a laugh? look up how many nuclear pits the us has made the last 50 years)

>>106262321
Telling the wrong person.

>>106262331
it is radioactive enough to burn you without the shielding it gets during transportation

>>106262351
Water is very good at shielding radiation.
Which is why it's perfectly safe to stand over an exposed nuclear cure submerged in a few meters of water and admire the Cherenkov radiation.

>>106262379
There was a design for a nuclear space-craft that achieved orbit via "small" nuclear explosions.
The American working on the concept canned it because he calculated that the fall-out could result in 1 death per billion.

>>106262443
sounds made up, what was the real reason

>>106260329
> depleted uranium
Turn it in to bullets as it’s heavy like lead and shoot up other countries with it, turning the DU into micro-fine dust and poisoning the victim country for generations.
Oh, they already do that?

>>106262479
>It's not possible to accelerate the decay process, generate heat/electricity in the process, and end up with another valuable mineral
Don't think so.

>>106262017
It already happened in russia numerous time where old cold war reactors and material were abandoned and scrappers re-used it unknowingly, or used it for heat.

>>106259962
Unironically good idea!

>>106260134
>Alpha are only dangerous if ingested
Your mom thinks otherwise.

>>106262586
reminder that the "mouse utopia" experiment had over two dozen iterations, no reproducability, and only the outcome of one of them is reported on

malthusians lie to justify theft and deprivation

>>106262598
kek

>>106262533
Literally just happened:
https://files.catbox.moe/ml3d1j.mp4

>>106262450
it would result in destruction of the launch pad and nuclear bombs cost more than hydrogen peroxide

>>106262602
No. It was stated they all had the same outcome.

>>106262602
>>106262663
source

>>106262276
It's two things:

Transuranic elements: neptunium, plutonium and americium - can be useful
Fission products: smaller elements that are the result of splitting uranium and tend to be unstable isotopes and thus very radioactive. - real waste that is nasty and can't be used for anything.

I think separating the transuranics from the fission products is the expensive part of reprocessfing nuclear fuel because it's so radioactive it can only be done through remote manipulation and the whole facility becomes contaminated by the fission products making maintenance a nightmare.

why njot put it in one of those radiation collector unit things and just let it decay and produce a handy 3.3v for the next 1000 years

>>106262724
Because of low IQ (of the general populace).
You know why every window needs those marks on them?
Because retards would walk directly into them otherwise.
The intellectual capabilities of the general populace largely determines the kinds of products that are available for use, and the rules that we must follow.
We are severely hampered because much of the population is borderline retarded and things are getting worse due to recent migration trends enabling "people" from even lower-IQ nations to enter our countries.

Eat it

>>106262076
That's why Yucca Mountain was selected. Very dry environment with no significant human populations nearby.
>>106262017
The irony in those incidents is that radioactive material was in an urban environment and was mishandled. If there was an easy process for getting rid of radioactive waste into a remote location, most of those incidents wouldn't have happened. Of course there's always the possibility of above average stupidity, incompetence, or malfeasance. Those can be reduced significantly but never completely eliminated.

>>106262817
didn't some research group come out and say the quiet part out loud that uranium actually tastes like lemonade

>>106262841
Unfortunately the study participants all died of symptoms suspiciously similar to severe internal radiation poisoning but they signed a waiver so it's all good.

>>106262901
we gotta trust the science, after all

>>106259668
Looks can a low level waste canister, so depending on how they define that, possibly nothing.

>>106259720
>If we were smart we'd make all of our reactors more expensive to build for no net benefit
Why on earth would we do that when the ore that it would be replacing is so incredible cheap per unit of energy produced?

>>106259668
5 toxic damage per tick

>>106260271
That isn't accurate. Uranium ore is not significantly radioactive when it comes out of the ground. Even after purifiaction and enrichment you can still hold a fuel pellet in your hands without any PPE and no ill effects.
It's the results of the fission reaction that are so radioactive. They're called fission products.

Burn it out back

>>106260329
>THE NUCLEAR WASTE IS LITERALLY FREE TO USE AND COSTS LESS TO REFINE, THAN IT TAKES TO MINE/PROCESS URANIUM
You forgot to take into account the price of building a fast reactor. They're more expensive than once-through reactors, and the economic feasibility tips back in favor or once-through.
It's not like the fissile materials are the bulk of the radioactive output anyway. After you make MOX you still have all those nasty medium half-life FPs like Cs-137. It's stuff like that that is the most problematic.

>>106261305
you don't actually need to move all that much rock to get loads of uranium. it's more common than tin lmao

>>106261257
It's cheaper and safer to bury it underground.
If it were cheap and safe to get nuclear waste into the sun that'd be fine and dandy, but the chance of your rocket blowing up on the way up is a safety risk no reasonable person wants to take.
Rockets are expensive per weight carried as well.

>>106262707
>the whole facility becomes contaminated by the fission products making maintenance a nightmare
We deal with this stuff at work. The radioactivity breaks robots (especially sensors and control circuits). It's truly awful, and really (chemically) toxic too.
Fortunately, there's not actually that much of it.

>>106261257
quite literally the worst possibly solution

>>106262331
There are many different types of nuclear waste at different levels of radioactivity.
Some is less radioactive than a banana. Spent fuel is much more radioactive.
The regulations on it are crazy as well. If you want to use a piece of steel that was once used for nuclear you have to get it ten times less radioactive than the same type of steel giving off the same kind of radiation but originating from a coal plant.

>>106262368
>because it's fucking pick-it-off-the-ground common
Not at concentrations where it's economically viable. It's $40/kg from Kazahkstan, but if we had to move out to the much bigger reserves at lower purity out in Australia it'd be around $200+/kg.
Not that market price is really a closely measurable thing like most metals. All deals are made behind closed doors, for amounts that each nation involved agree to on a case by case basis.

>>106263064
>The radioactivity breaks robots (especially sensors and control circuits). It's truly awful, and really (chemically) toxic too.
What kind of time scales do you see breakage over? I've seen a few case studies where robots make it in and out for single jobs without any trouble, but not read into repeated use failure rates.
I guess you're either at a plant or a waste site.

>>106259559 (OP)
Just dig a hole, throw it in there and forget about it.
Who fucking cares if in 10 bazillion years some stupid animal dig it out and dies. They'll just learn to stay away from it.

>>106263252
>Who fucking cares if in 10 bazillion years some stupid animal dig it out and dies. They'll just learn to stay away from it.
Related to that, people love to think about how we'll write a sign that tells people to stay out of a nuclear waste dump, but I think that's usually a waste of time. We'll either stay technologically advanced enough that we can detect the radiation, or lose enough tech that digging that deep becomes really hard.

>>106259559 (OP)
dump it in india where it belongs

>>106263124
>Not at concentrations where it's economically viable
you're trying to refute me by agreeing

>>106263286
Oh, you mean it's pick it off the ground common at just those two places? My mistake. I thought you making one of these comments about how common it is throughout the crust.

>>106259559 (OP)
Yakuza 8.

Nuclear waste in real life is vastly different from the yellow drum barrel bullshit that the Simpsons popularized, and it's actually very easy and clean to manage. Do not believe the Greenfags who want to steer us away from nuclear for the sake of the (((oil barons))).

You put it in a rocket and then send that rocket to mars and watch the explosion for fun.
All the nukes in rhe world should be sent to mars at the same time would be so cool to watch the livestream. One giant fucking kaboom

@elonmusk cmon bro

It's actually crazy reading this thread and seeing how little the average /g/ user knows about nuclear power.

>>106259559 (OP)
You line the site where you originally got from with a good barrier.
Next you mix the waste evenly with the aggregate from the exavation where you got the original ore from.
And then you run the mining operation in reverse. Bring it in, compact it, repeat, when it's all back in put a good lid on. Easy as what could go wrong

>>106263045
the other stuff can be used for warfare, or just dumped somewhere in the ground, as it takes up far less space.
sure its more dangerous, but afaik it also has a shorter half life
also, france is running fast reactors, they're doing fine
they will build fast reactors sooner or later when they mined out most of the uranium or have too much waste they can't store lmao
>>106264230
nuke saturn, death to saturnian reptiles

>>106259559 (OP)
Dump it in the ocean.
Plenty of space there.

>>106260329
Most nuclear waste, as pictured, is not uranium or plutonium or anything like that at all.
It's irradiated water.

>>106260090
under your house, preferably

>>106259559 (OP)
Dump them in the lake, where nobody can see 'em

>>106259559 (OP)
Turn it into a food additive and lobby the government to make school launches using it

>>106261904
it's hardly an assumption. no human language has ever been in use for as long as the halflife of the spent rods. as a matter of fact, they're radioactive for a longer amount of time than human beings have been capable of using language. so every language we speak now will be even more unknown than Sanskrit or Babylonian is to us, if language trends continue as they historically have, and there's no reason to assume otherwise.

nuclear waste is: "fuck our future children, let them accidentally discover it and figure out their own solution, we are far too lazy and making a lot of money presently, so fuck 'em 'cause I'll be dead."

>>106264560
Just put the atoms back together dude.

>>106264240
Very few people in the world know much about anything.
What does the average person do?
Rape children (in Afghanistan (e.g. "Bachi Boys"), in India, etc...).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi
Studying nuclear physics isn't a very common activity, actually.

>>106264560
>fuck our future children
Bruh you're sick.

>>106259668
You probably wouldn't notice anything for a day and then your flesh would slowly melt away over the course of a month.

>>106263057
>safer to bury it underground.
No it isn't. When the container corrodes away rain water will get in and start contaminating the ground water.

>>106262602
It doesn't matter, mice don't have religion, politics, and technology. If humans behaved like mice we would have had a Malthusian collapse around 50 years before the mouse utopia experiments were run and a number of times before as well. It's ridiculous they'd make these claims with the discovery of nitrogen fixation in living memory.

Africans? Sure they have Malthusian behavior. Everyone else follows Turchin's equations with different parameters depending on genetics.

>>106264371
>the other stuff can be used for warfare
The practical problem with that is that the worst of the contaminants are volatile, so you think your spraying enemies, but then the wind changes and it blows your way, or you move your line a little further forward but your guys still need water but you poisoned the water supply with invisible toxins. Even if you didn't, none of your guys wants to drink the water or go anywhere near that area.
Also, it's actually quite difficult to create a dirty bomb powerful enough to kill people that's still able to be handled. You can put a ton of shielding on it but it makes it very heavy and difficult to handle and at that point, why not just use a normal bomb? Dirty bombs are psychological weapons only.
>sure its more dangerous, but afaik it also has a shorter half life
You're right that the more radiation something puts out, the shorter half-life it has, because radiation comes from atoms as they decay. Very short half-life isotopes pump out radiation fast, but they also decay away quickly. Very long half-life isotopes like the actinides last for thousands of years, but they don't put out much radiation per time. Middle lifespan isotopes like Cs-137 have about a 30 year half-life. There will be a problematic amount around for any given life span, and they pump out enough radiation to kill people/make them sick.
>france is running fast reactors, they're doing fine
True. It's a choice to take a hit to economic efficiency in exchange for fuel security. They were wise to do that, but it's still more expensive so your point about it costing less than once through doesn't hold up.
>they will build fast reactors sooner or later when they mined out most of the uranium
Once through has about 100 years left, FBRs have about 1,000. Now it's more about choosing how much we want to invest in having a tech lead for export when it comes to that 100 year mark, not about actually needing the infrastructure.

>>106264648
We can plan for water ingress. At the moment they put a thick layer of dry grout around the internal canister, so if the external canister splits and lets water in it forms a concrete barrier that seals up the split and absorbs the water.
We haven't yet found a way to completely reliably launch rockets without them exploding. At least, not a method we're confident enough in. There is techincally one rocket that has a 0% failure rate, but that is also what you'd expect statistically given how many different types of rocket there are and how relatively infrequently we fly them compared to say, sending cars out on journeys or keeping materials in canisters.
As well, if we get a leak underground, we can find that and clean it up, because these storage facilties are usually built to be somewhat man-accessible and placed underneath a water table or otherwise built so the contaminants won't be taken to a water supply, but if a rocket blew up in atmosphere that's about the worst case scenario for dispersal. Zero containment and it's on the wind free in the environment.

>>106264581
I just expected people here to have at least a little more basic knowledge, or failing that, not talk so confidently about something they so clearly know nothing about.

>>106264681
The implication is that these behavioral traits may begin expressing themselves under certain social conditions automatically, through unconscious factors.
We do indeed see MANY parallels between the behavior of the mice in Mouse Utopia and humans in the current era. It's only been a few years since we largely eliminated external threats, and underwent MAJOR social changes, which are still ongoing. Mass manufacturing, for example, has brought about a level of convenience that we have never adapted to, and it only occurred in the past few hundred years.
The situation is similar for the complete abundance of high quality food without any effort necessary.
It's anyones guess as to what the underlying cause is.
Is it a rapidly-increasing population density? If so, and there are human parallels, then we would see the associated behavioral changes primarily around high-population areas (such as cities).
Is it easy access to necessities like food & water? Unlikely.
What about a lack of external threats forcing internal cohesion to protect against? Perhaps. Maybe a combination.

>>106259559 (OP)
I would shove it up your ass, faggot OP

>>106259559 (OP)
Feed it to death row inmates

>>106264386
what stops you from purifying contaminated water and keeping the solids, or if they are dissolved, chemically modifying them to make them fall out of solution?
>>106264689
literally just create a teflon coated lead "water splash balloon" and drop it onto a hard-ish surface out of a plane
>30 years
i think 60 years of high danger can be managed more than 2000 years of moderate danger that will leak somewhere into the environment if ANYTHING goes wrong at all, 3/4 of the atoms decayed should be fine, no?
>more expensive
from what i heard its actually cheaper for the french than running traditional reactors, but if it isnt already, it will be cheaper in the future
fast reactors won't ever 100% replace traditional ones though, because you need to get nuclear 'waste' from somewhere after all, unless you only need U238 and plutonium without U235 to make MOX fuel (i'm not entirely sure about that)
then you would only end up with a bunch of U235 you have to use somehow
>>106264760
i'm not an expert, i just have a bit of basic knowledge because i like physics
>>106264875
good fucking luck disposing of them
actually, this gave me a new idea
i wish there was some way to embed highly toxic/radioactive material in my body without causing harm to myself as long as i am alive and my body is not decomposing and no surgery opens up that area.
that way, i would be able to prevent any government entities from killing me, because they would have to deal with dangerous nuclear waste (my body) whenever it starts to decompose, gets chopped up, gets cremated, etc...

>>106264902
If you ever do a mass shooting in Roblox, just bring some uranium or whatever along with you, and then eat it all once you know the jig is up.

>>106264902
>literally just create a teflon coated lead "water splash balloon" and drop it onto a hard-ish surface out of a plane
To make a dirty bomb? How do you think that addresses any of what I just said?
>i think 60 years of high danger can be managed more than 2000 years of moderate danger that will leak somewhere into the environment if ANYTHING goes wrong at all, 3/4 of the atoms decayed should be fine, no?
If something goes wrong in a GDF, it's not a big deal, there are measures in place, we know where the radioactive material is, we know where the leak is because we put detectors all over the place, and we placed the store in such a place that the waste wouldn't leach into a water supply. As well, if something does leak, it's lower radiation output per time for most of those 2,000 years than the first 60 years are.
For the case where we "just dump [Cs-137] in the ground" it's already loose in the environment. It'll reach the water supply and increase the cancer risk of populations near it depending on how much there is.
>because you need to get nuclear 'waste' from somewhere after all
You can use a breeder blanket to turn U-238 into Pu. You don't need waste to run fast reactors.
99.3% of the uranium is U-238 before enrichment. Every nuclear country has huge piles of the stuff. There's enough of it to last a really really long time.
>then you would only end up with a bunch of U235 you have to use somehow
You could use it to, you know, make fuel rods. The topic of discussion.
>i just have a bit of basic knowledge because i like physics
This topic is really a lot more about engineering and economics than physics, and you don't seem to really understand the physics here either.

>>106259559 (OP)
Shots.
>shots shots shots shots shots

>>106265097
Best answer in thread.

>>106264972
i dont plan to do anything like that because my wife and kids would miss me, but good idea either way
>>106265025
go find an unpaid nigger to do it in africa, wash it with african river water, it has enough acid to lick the entire thing clean from the outside
the mining industry doesnt give a shit about contaminating africa by mining lithium or other shit like cadmium, so why would they suddenly care about a bit of nuclear waste?
>dumping it in the ground
of course, you need to let it sit around for 100 years or so, then it should be safe to dump somewhere, or just let the mine you store it in rot. by the time anything leaks, its already decayed enough.
>theres enough to last a long time
i know, but if it EVER runs out in however many thousand years, we would have to mine more, and have U235 laying around. will U235 be the new 'byproduct'? can you even use normal fuel in a fast reactor?
>breeder reactor
yeah i know, its basically an infinite plutonium hack 1946 edition free download
also, about long term nuclear waste containment... i don't think that anything can last forever, humans are incredible irresponsible, and we would probably end up with barrels contained by bigger barrels contained by bigger barrels etc..., just like the chernobyl sarcophagus.

>>106265125
>lick the entire thing clean from the outside
This is the kind of thing I mean about how you don't have enough physics knowledge to form good opinions on this.
Beta and gamma radiation would both penetrate the surface of your balloon, and kill you.
If you make the bomb weak enough that is doesn't kill you during handling, it will becoming even less concentrated and even weaker when you drop it on your target, which means it definitely won't kill them either.
>just let the mine you store it in rot. by the time anything leaks, its already decayed enough.
If the mine is above a water table, it will seep through the rock and contaminate drinking water.
If it isn't above a water table... It's probably a GDF. GDFs are the long term storage I'm talking about. So I guess don't worry, we already do that and much better.
>i know, but if it EVER runs out in however many thousand years, we would have to mine more, and have U235 laying around. will U235 be the new 'byproduct'? can you even use normal fuel in a fast reactor?
Just put U-238 around any reaction that produces fast neutrons. That's any fission reaction really. It doesn't have to be specifically U-235.
You can use the fissile Pu you get from breeding to make more Pu from U-238.
>i don't think that anything can last forever, humans are incredible irresponsible
Even irresponsible people are motivated by fear and self-interest. They'll make sure radioactive waste stays contained so long as they have the means. We build the canisters in such a way that even if we lose the means it'll mostly be fine.
>we would probably end up with barrels contained by bigger barrels contained by bigger barrels etc..., just like the chernobyl sarcophagus.
Only if the bigger barrel and greater liability made sense rather than repacking. We'd just repack it if it got silly and stopped making sense to add additional layers.

>>106265125
>i know, but if it EVER runs out in however many thousand years, we would have to mine more, and have U235 laying around. will U235 be the new 'byproduct'? can you even use normal fuel in a fast reactor?
I see what you mean about this on a reread.
Just mix it in with the fuel. That's what MOX means. Mixed oxide. Uranium oxide and plutonium oxide.

>>106264902
>what stops you from purifying contaminated water and keeping the solids, or if they are dissolved, chemically modifying them to make them fall out of solution?
Why do this when you can just wait instead?

>>106259559 (OP)
there's companies that can refine it and turn it back into usable rods.

>>106265221
does it create an amalgam with lead or what
>beta/gamma radiation
keyword lead, lead "balloon".
>we already do that
until some water runs down there and carries it all over the place, contaminating nearby areas
>you can use the fissile Pu to make more Pu
i know that, but can breeder reactors take U235 enriched fuel at all? afaik MOX rods get depleted more quickly, but what other differences exist?
>motivated by fear and self interest
tell that to oil mafia retards who pollute the entire planet with plastic despite being fully aware that they are stuck on this planet as well
>we built the canisters well
will they prevent contamination spread until the next coming of christ without any active maintenance whatsoever?
>repack
i guess that makes sense if you can actually do that without having to deal with highly radioactive crap that just has a short half life, i assume they just shred the entire barrels (or whatever was got contaminated), this still requires active maintenance
>>106265244
oh so its perfectly fine and won't just stick around in depleted rods? neat.
>>106265263
i think it costs way more to build a giant canister for storing a lot of water, than simply boiling it down to at least a thick slurry (or ideally solids)

>>106264621
no u

>>106259559 (OP)
Use it in those new Chinese molten salt reactors

>>106259559 (OP)
1 Dump it in a big well with several layers of concrete and steel. Multi layered so you can fix it when it breaks. Pour water into the well and own a perpetual (not really) stream power source.

2 send it to Mars and have tunnel to the center of the red planet so you can kick start the martian magnetosphere with a nuclear powered core

>>106259559 (OP)
The desert is fucking massive. Put it in a giant concrete hole and guard it.

bomb.

or.. keep it under your pillow until you dream a way to use it.

>>106262081
I like the cut of your jib.

>>106262017
>The reality is the people most likely to dig up anything with radioactive symbols on it are dumb thirdworlders who can't read anyway.
AKA the future of America and most of the world.

>>106259559 (OP)
>What do you do with the radioactive waste from nuclear power plants?
you store it under the ground for hundreds of thousands of years in an expensive facility built deep underground

>>106259674
>>106259697
so mentally buck broken that they believe the federal government is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient. sad.

>>106259559 (OP)
recycle most of it
bury the rest
waste isn't that big of an issue unless there's bad actors

>>106259559 (OP)
Normally they encase it in a led lined concrete tomb and bury it

>>106261018
Yet they're perfectly OK with having one of the largest cyanide plants in the world near a populated area. Fucking morons.

>>106262363
ESL post: disregarded

Can it be reenriched so some of it gets a 2nd life as fuel rods again?

>>106259559 (OP)
Mix it into kosher products.

>>106269905
Anon I. . .

>>106259668
try dunking your head on hardened concrete

The nuclear Renaissance has finally started.

Supposed to put it in dry storage in Yucca mountain but conservatards don't want waste stored where it can't do any harm

>>106262017
DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES BUILD A FAN. If you do, a scary ghost will chase you away.

>>106272746
>An Investigation Into The Pacman Lore (3 hour youtube video, 1.3M views)

>>106272671
>conservatards
Harry Reid was the DEMOCRAT Senate Majority Leader who killed off using Yucca Mountain. Of course you knew that but for some reason felt like being a disingenuous fucktard.

>>106259559 (OP)
Throw it into a deep hole or cave
The radiation won't be issue even if you store continent's worth of waste in it

>>106272746
Good advice

>>106273101
NTA but he's from Nevada and NIMBYism transcends party lines

>>106273101
Notice I didn't say republican.

Dangerous radioactive waste doesn't exist. If it's highly radioactive it's a valuable source of energy and if it's not highly radioactive it's not dangerous.

>>106271074
Not a viable option, you'd first have to clean it of all fission products, which doesn't really work. Then you still only get about the same degree of enrichment as natural uranium has, so why bother?

lol what
why is this thread on /g/ lmao

>>106259559 (OP)
Send it to a third world country

>>106259559 (OP)
You give it all to some psycho cultists that own a private island in the Hawaiian Archipelago that are working with the Yakuza. Then some mutt half-Japanese schizo man unveils your scheme to the entire world.

>picrel

>>106271074
Why re-enrich stuff that's full of fission products when you could just enrich virgin ore that costs less to mine than the used stuff does to clean?

>>106275560
1. Nuclear reactors are technology.
2. Where else would it go?

>>106259559 (OP)
reprocess what you can
dig a deep hole into rock and dump the rest there, this is inaccessible and permanent if done properly.
it's a totally overblown issue.

>>106275744
Came here looking for this. Only good post.

>>106259901
This one gets my vote. Why not just encase the drums in conkreet(that's cement baby) and drop them in the ocean? I really don't see the prawnblem so long as they're not placed in seismically or volcanically active areas.