On 23 Aug 2002, at 7:19, Paul F. Dietz wrote:
> Some comments on all of this (from various posters):
>
> Spent fuel does not become only as radioactive as the original
> uranium ore within a few thousand years. The *fission* products
> do, but the long term biohazard is mostly from actinides (plutonium,
> neptunium, etc.), and possibly from 14C.
>
> Actinides in spent fuel are a potential fuel source, but reprocessing
> is presently very uneconomical. The cost of raw uranium is a trivial
> component of the current cost of nuclear energy; even enrichment is
> not all that expensive.
>
> The easiest way to send plutonium into interstellar space is
> to send it some distance away from Earth, then explode it.
> Even a low-efficiency nuclear explosion can completely vaporize
> the material; the gas will either be ionized immediately or become
> ionized by solar EUV/XUV and be carried off by the solar wind.
>
> If we want to send nuclear waste into space, there is no rush.
> Armored dry casks can safely isolate spent fuel for centuries
> at least.
>
This is another point in favor of disposal under Yucca Mountain. If
problems develop there that make it necessary to remove the waste after
a few decades or centuries, transporting it into space should be a lot
easier by then. Also, it would be all in one place, not scattered around
the country.
Chris
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
