We HAVE the technolgy
To solve this problem
.........................................................................................................................................................................
Why don't we use it?
- The waste is placed far below aquifers, in regions in which water has had no contact with the surface for a million years or more. We will dispose in or under geologic formations that have been stable for tens of millions of years. Typically, this means a depth of about a mile, but in some locations it could be as shallow as 3000 feet, or as deep as 10,000 feet. Drilling such holes is now routine, and the drilling industry has made over 50,000 of such horizontal drillholes over the last 20 years.
I have always favored concentration of the waste, after usable fuel is refined out. Then it is best to lift it into space; and dump it into the sun.
This deep drill would work, but you would need to frac the bottom of the hole to have room for any volume.
The least expensive would be to contain it in silica glass., in molten solution. When it hardens, you have a permanent storage container, made of glass.
What ever we do. we need to effectively dispose of this waste!
:)throw it into space huh?
ten thousand dollars a pound to reach low earth orbit is a bit high?
extra fare for anywhere else.
The Germans are lifting it a lot cheaper with stacked identical solid rocket boosters. The cost is why we would need to refine the waste. Working it out, will further reduce the costs. Collecting it in orbit to raise out of the gravity well with an Ionic thruster (low thrust, but we are not in a hurry) that can be reused will finish the drop into the sun.
The silica glass is the most dependable, and the least expensive way to permanently store this problem, where it can NOT escape. Even if you split the glass, the pieces will still contain the waste in two smaller pieces.
But I still think that dropping the waste into the sun is best disposal method. Then we do not burden or children with our waste. We could make it cheaper as we go along.
:)Have you ever heard the saying...one man's trash is another man's treasure?
Oh...are you aware that Liquid Flourine Thorium Reactors
and use high level waste from Uranium reactors as fuel?
it 'burns' it all up.
(only 1% left....I think)
I hadn't heard about the German Rockets.
Had not heard of these reactors. Honestly I have not looked there, been working on the new homestead.
But they had talked of refining the fuel to reduce it''s volume and that may have been what they intended; since they called it fuel.
The rockets are not new, they began making one design, and then stacking a bundle for greater lift. The one I saw was a vertical stack of three stages, with one on top seven under that, and a bunch under that (not sure how many on the first stage) They could recover and reuse the individual rockets by parachute.
:)I haven't been able to find anything about a German Space program. What I have found is that Germany is part of the European Space Agency which buys at least some of their surface to orbit rockets from Russia .
They were not solid fuel, but used Kerosene. They started 1977+, stopped 1987, and restarted in 2006
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OTRAG_%28rocket%29
It looks to be a smart way to do things.
:)after a couple of hours of search it appears to me that SpaceX Heavy Falcon is chargin about $1300 per pound earth to low orbit. Everyone else is charging almost ten times that. That might explain why SpaceX had 18 launches this year.
The price will continue to fall as the lift capacity and frequency climb. That was why I liked the German attempt because of cheap fuel, and reusable rockets.
Space Ex is doing well on the reusable part. I like what they are doing. We need to push for cost effective lift capacity.
I would place a lift field on top of a mountain. I would allow trucks to do the first 12,000 feet of lifting, and save rocket fuel! The weight is measurably less on top of a mountain, and the lift distance to orbit is reduced. Since the initial lift displacement is the most costly in fuel, it should reduce initial expenditures.
:)Twelve thousand fett? TRUCK? Do you have a failure of imagination?
How about thirty five thousand feet?
I have been watching these lift bodies in the NASA Tech brief Magazine, and I like them. The one with the hypersonic ram jets that will burn best over 50,000 feet is innovative, and may allow a spacecraft the fly close to outer space before reaction mass is used. They think they can used a shaped outer hull with fuel injectors, that uses the supersonic air compression to provide the combustion air for the motor.
These pre rocket lift designs are a fuel saver for sure!
But if they take off from an elevated location (Denver would be Easy) will still save costs It is hard to compete with a simple truck for costs, even with a custom lift body. The only cheaper option would be a pipeline to pump the fuel uphill.
I had seen one concept using a Zepplin that was interesting too, it did not help much on launch speed, but it had altitude and hang time going for it.
:)