You can't claim to be an environmentalist and be anti-nuclear energy at the same time - eviltoast
  • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    IIRC we have 2 solutions 1 is what we currently use and the second is more or less the best but a tad expensive so we don’t. (This is for the highly radioactive waste that has long decay and makes up about 1-3% of waste, the stuff we “worry” about)

    The former is we mix the radioactive material with glass, ceramic, and concrete into large pieces and just leave em. Standing next to them you actually receive more radiation from the sun and they cannot be recovered into usable material because of how they are melted and mixed together.

    The latter is more or less the same, but we dig, on site, an L shaped bore into the ground a long way into the earths crust where it can be stored indefinitely, is not recoverable, and can keep a site running for it’s entire lifetime without filling the hole. You then fill in the hole at end of life and done. No harm to people, environment, or earth. Basically a DGR (Deep Geological Repository)

    • WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      And we can think about a 3rd and actually ship the materials in rockets and space them. Throwing them beyond Earth SOI would prevent accumulating garbage in orbit

      • Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s a lot of risk of spreading high-level radioactive materials across large areas of earth. Rockets explode sometimes, and even the RTGs many probes use required special attention to rocket reliability. Moving tonnes of material like that wouod be an inevitable disaster with current rocket reliability and abort systems.

        Or we could put it in a hole.