Final deposit of nuclear waste

[Cecil]

Why get rid of it at all? Its prime fuel for the next gen reactors. 

[Maximus]

Indeed. My impression is with current technology you can keep re-using the fuel almost indefinitely. The only downside is that it eventually produces weapons-grade plutonium. This is based on a talk I attended some years ago, though, so I may be off.

[Admiral Yi]

I live under 100 miles downwind on the prevailing winds from COGEMA La Hague, which is just across the English Channel from here. So I have a vested interest in seeing this problem solved.

I would hate for anything to happen to those facilities.

??

I thought the prevailing winds in the Channel were west to east.

[Ideologue]

Indeed. My impression is with current technology you can keep re-using the fuel almost indefinitely. The only downside is that it eventually produces weapons-grade plutonium.

You forgot to mention the downside.

[Maximus]

You forgot to mention the downside.

I think both the risk and cost of a waste containment failure would increase significantly. Of course, there would much less waste to contain.

Any legitimate consumer of weapons-grade plutonium already has more than they need.

[Ideologue]

You forgot to mention the downside.

I think both the risk and cost of a waste containment failure would increase significantly. Of course, there would much less waste to contain.

Any legitimate consumer of weapons-grade plutonium already has more than they need.

You don't know what I need.

[The Brain]

The "bury it" solution means that you can just dig it up if you want to reprocess the fuel.

It also means that human intervention is one of the major uncertainties about the long term deposit. Much bigger than any naturally occurring future events.

[The Brain]

dump it into the Mariana Trench.

Sweden stopped dumping nuclear waste in the sea in 1969.

[derspiess]

Thought the thread title was Brain's euphemism for taking a dump.

[mongers]

I live under 100 miles downwind on the prevailing winds from COGEMA La Hague, which is just across the English Channel from here. So I have a vested interest in seeing this problem solved.

I would hate for anything to happen to those facilities.

??

I thought the prevailing winds in the Channel were west to east.

south-westerlies.

[Bluebook]

Do you really think it is politically viable to do it in any other way? I think one of the reasons behind the very favourable public opinion regarding nuclear power is that people feel that the waste will be handled very carefully and not just dumped into the ground.

[The Brain]

Do you really think it is politically viable to do it in any other way?

No. And while it is irrational to worry about nuclear waste given that the irrational worry exists satisfying the irrational fear is rational. Like washing your hands 50 times if you're irrationally afraid of germs.

[HVC]

dump it into the Mariana Trench.

Sweden stopped dumping nuclear waste in the sea in 1969.

but why dig deep holes when you have a natural one. plus all that extra water weight will keep it "buried" down there. i think you should tell your superiors.

[The Brain]

dump it into the Mariana Trench.

Sweden stopped dumping nuclear waste in the sea in 1969.

but why dig deep holes when you have a natural one. plus all that extra water weight will keep it "buried" down there. i think you should tell your superiors.

Superiors?

[HVC]

dump it into the Mariana Trench.

Sweden stopped dumping nuclear waste in the sea in 1969.

but why dig deep holes when you have a natural one. plus all that extra water weight will keep it "buried" down there. i think you should tell your superiors.

Superiors?

fine, bosses. sheesh, so literal