🚀 go-pugleaf

As someone posted months earlier....what color is the sky on your
planet.

There are no solutions. Monitored storage is the only choice for now
but subject to terrorism. I don't like monitored storage but the only
sensible method for now.

nuclear power is the most expensive boondoggle ever.

"Ross Bradley" <ross@tarms.com> wrote:

>Hi,

>During WWII a bomb called 'GrandSlam' was designed by Barnes Wallis.
>Basically a 10 ton bomb constructed to penetrate 20+ feet of concrete.
>So.... resurect the design.  Instead of explosive insert a few ton of waste
>and drop it in very deep water (several km) with a muddy bottom.  Assuming
>that it can be aerodynamically (or is that hydrodynamically) designed it may
>be possible that it could get up enough speed to safetly bury itself in the
>sea floor.

>BTW.  I'm not serious about this sort of disposal.  I think that plutonium
>should be viewed as the sort of stuff that you get rid of when you clean out
>your house.  You find a need for it the next day :-)


>Bullwinkle J. Moose <mcx2@tcac.net> wrote in message
>news:39186F24.9D1EBB6A@tcac.net...
>> The bigest technical dificulty to overcome would be how to place a large
>object
>> very deep with in a subduction zone.  A potential asset would be that the
>> devivery vehicle could be thought of as 'disposable', so if the journy
>eventualy
>> destroyed the vehicle, that would not be a prolem.  If some sort of
>'motor' or
>> engin could be devised, that were in some way powered by water pressure,
>so that
>> going deeper would inturn propel the vehicle further, a sort of
>sub-oceanic
>> ramjet, it would be possible to get the object sufficently deep (several
>> kilometers).  At this depth, it is concivable that the surounding water
>would
>> never come with in so much as a kilometer or two of the surface.  Flow
>paterns
>> of water at extreme depths would need to be studied to ensure this.  If,
>infact
>> the water at such depths esential stays there, then it would be practicle
>to
>> deposit nuclear waste there.  Security would be provided by placeing the
>> material so deep, that it would be imposible to retreave.  It is a ideal
>> soloution, and a friendly one, as it is in effect placeing the material in
>as
>> close to a natural habitat as radioactive material has available.
>>
>>
>> indigo wrote:
>>
>> > --
>> >
>> > "Ross Bradley" <ross@tarms.com> wrote in message
>> > news:957754941.595999@server.tarms.com...
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > A similar idea, but use a former uranium mine as the repository.  Bind
>the
>> > > waste into a glass/ceramic base (e.g.. Synrock (sp?)) and inter it at
>the
>> > ex
>> > > mine.  If it is diluted enough with the binding agent then the waste
>could
>> > > actually be less radioactive than the extracted ore, i.e. the dump
>would
>> > > actually reduce the amount of radiation in the environment.  Also if
>> > > plutonium (half life 24,000 years?) and replaced the U238 (half life
>4.3
>> > > billion years?) then you could argue that the site would be safer
>sooner
>> > > :-).
>> > >
>> > > How fast to sub-sea subduction zones (if that is the correct term)
>move.
>> > > i.e. drum of waste was buried where one part of the crust moves under
>> > > another part a few km underwater, how long would it take the waste to
>move
>> > > under the crust.  For that matter, aren't most sub-sea oil wells
>stable?
>> > If
>> > > they weren't stable for a geological age then the oil would leak out.
>> >
>> > The idea of using subduction zones has been well studied. It would be
>> > impossible to implement (my opinion) because of environmental concerns,
>even
>> > though it is near/at the top of the methods for permanent disposal.
>>