If the new programme for nuclear energy goes ahead?

Question

Then the cost of decommissioning will will last for thousands of years unless they opt to contaminate the planet by burying the waste, would it be safer and possibly cheaper to rocket it to the sun. A furnace that is already burning billions of tons each day and the rocket system being a one way journey could be developed and cheapened

Answer 1

Be careful before permanently disposing of "waste" that may be a major asset in the future. After reprocessing, the residual radioactive material should be stored in safe but accessible places. In space, on the moon or at a Lagrangian point; on earth possibly in deep mines.

Answer 2

The world need to look at what France and Russia are doing in these areas.

Russia claims to have come up with a way to neutralize radio activity in water and France reprocesses and reuses their waste multiple times to power their Nuc power plants while the US takes their Nuc waste and uses it in weapons and armor for military (DU) so they can just spread it around the world more easily.

Answer 3

hears a question for you,

what do fossil fuels do for the planet

Answer 4

Your hypothesis is a thought but what if thats sending tons of waste to a natural reactor we might or would be "peeing in a fan"so to speak".

Answer 5

The government set up a committee of non-experts called CoRWM that spent millions consulting the public on options for dealing with radioactive waste.  This rejected the idea of disposal to space at the first pass.  I suggest you visit their web site.  They concurred with what experts in the industry have known for years, that deep disposal is not cheap but is a safe method of disposal and represents the BPEO.  The main environmental impact is not from the RA waste, but from digging and filling the hole and transporting the waste to it.  The greatest risk to public safety is also the transport- again nothing to do with the radioactivity, just that being hit by any 60t lorry isn't good for your health!

New nuclear plant is designed to minimise RA waste arisings and make decommissioning and waste management much easier than the existing designs- a new plant would create less than 10% as much waste as older UK designs.  So we could replace all our existing plant and effectively create minimal "problems" compared to what already exists. If you want to complain, complain that the NDA is NOT saving tax payers money on decommissioning overall- its spending less in the next 3 years, but the total cost will be more.  Their plans are currently open for consultation on their web pages.

Answer 6

the amount of truly radio-active stuff that has to be dealt with is about 8 cubic feet per reactor per decade...

I think we can handle that..and yes, a one way shot out of Earths gravitational well is excellent answer........just not by rocket..........probably a really big magnetic track catapult......

Answer 7

Think of the risk of getting it out of earth orbit! What if the rocket exploded in the atmosphere?