Why not throw nuclear waste into a volcano?
August 13, 2011 11:08 AM Subscribe
Would disposing of nuclear waste in a volcano cause radioactive material to rise into the atmosphere? What would be the arguments against disposing of our nuclear waste into a volcano?
You realize that volcanoes are not closed systems, right? They're not just giant buckets. Regardless of what might come wafting out the top, anything you throw in there is going to eventually leach back into the earth, polluting groundwater, disrupting ecosystems, and distributing radioactive material far and wide in a completely uncontrolled way.
posted by phunniemee at 11:15 AM on August 13, 2011
posted by phunniemee at 11:15 AM on August 13, 2011
I'm sure it would depend on the kind of volcano. Some ooze molten rock, some blow ash into the stratosphere.
The salient feature of a volcano is that stuff is coming out of it; ideally, you'd want waste to go in to wherever you dump it (hence the idea of dumping vitrified waste into subduction zones).
The only advantage to dumping waste into a volcano that I can think of is that it might be diluted and encapsulated into lava, where it wouldn't be very bioavailable. Eventually it'd be exposed by weathering and leaching, but maybe that'd happen after the waste had decayed to harmlessness. It all seems like a bit of an unpredictable crapshoot to me— not the best thing when disposing of nuclear waste.
posted by hattifattener at 11:19 AM on August 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
The salient feature of a volcano is that stuff is coming out of it; ideally, you'd want waste to go in to wherever you dump it (hence the idea of dumping vitrified waste into subduction zones).
The only advantage to dumping waste into a volcano that I can think of is that it might be diluted and encapsulated into lava, where it wouldn't be very bioavailable. Eventually it'd be exposed by weathering and leaching, but maybe that'd happen after the waste had decayed to harmlessness. It all seems like a bit of an unpredictable crapshoot to me— not the best thing when disposing of nuclear waste.
posted by hattifattener at 11:19 AM on August 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
They aren't hot enough to even melt the metal casing around spent nuclear fuel.
posted by miyabo at 11:20 AM on August 13, 2011
posted by miyabo at 11:20 AM on August 13, 2011
According to Popular Science, volcanos aren't actually hot enough to do much of anything to fuel rods. Not hot enough to melt them, and certainly not hot enough to render them inert. So, now you've got a radioactive volcano... sort of a geological Godzilla that's waiting for its closeup.
This is a very Googleable question, btw.
posted by mumkin at 11:20 AM on August 13, 2011
This is a very Googleable question, btw.
posted by mumkin at 11:20 AM on August 13, 2011
Radioactive things are radioactive on an atomic level. In order to make them not be radioactive, you have to change them on an atomic level, and the heat and pressure in a volcano are not sufficient to bring about those changes. (You can't 'burn' individual atoms.)
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 11:21 AM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Green Eyed Monster at 11:21 AM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]
As posters above have pointed out, throwing nuclear waste into a volcano wouldn't work.
What would work is Hollister's sub-seabed disposal in which the waste is sunk into the red-clay seabed of a subduction zone. As the tectonic plates move over one another the waste is subsumed into the magma core and circulated.
posted by alby at 11:22 AM on August 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
What would work is Hollister's sub-seabed disposal in which the waste is sunk into the red-clay seabed of a subduction zone. As the tectonic plates move over one another the waste is subsumed into the magma core and circulated.
posted by alby at 11:22 AM on August 13, 2011 [2 favorites]
...Interesting. In addition to the other comments about environmental hazards, also remember that if a volcano goes boom and puts enough smoke and dust into the atmosphere, it drastically changes the climate to several degrees lower. Helloooooo ice age!
posted by dustpatterns at 11:24 AM on August 13, 2011
posted by dustpatterns at 11:24 AM on August 13, 2011
Response by poster: The intent of the question was to find out what would happen to radioactive material if put into a volcano. Where would it go? How would it be affected? Phunniemee your answer was more what I was looking for.
posted by ToruOkada at 11:27 AM on August 13, 2011
posted by ToruOkada at 11:27 AM on August 13, 2011
Some people have discussed instead putting such waste in a subduction zone, though this is apparently illegal currently. This would carry waste down towards the earths core, if all went well.
posted by procrastination at 11:28 AM on August 13, 2011
posted by procrastination at 11:28 AM on August 13, 2011
An element is the basic constituent of matter. Practically speaking, there is no way to break elements into something other than the elements that they are, because they are the simplest form of matter.
Radioactive waste is toxic on an elemental level. There is, practically speaking, no amount of heating that is going to break down the radioactive elements into some that is not radioactive. Throwing them into a volcano might vaporize them and turn them into a gas, but it would not destroy them or turn them into something that would be any less radioactive.
In short, the only thing you would be doing by throwing them into a volcano is moving them around and probably destroying anything that had been containing them and localizing their radioactivity.
(Lots of caveats to my statement, if someone wants to pick it apart they can)
posted by 517 at 11:31 AM on August 13, 2011
Radioactive waste is toxic on an elemental level. There is, practically speaking, no amount of heating that is going to break down the radioactive elements into some that is not radioactive. Throwing them into a volcano might vaporize them and turn them into a gas, but it would not destroy them or turn them into something that would be any less radioactive.
In short, the only thing you would be doing by throwing them into a volcano is moving them around and probably destroying anything that had been containing them and localizing their radioactivity.
(Lots of caveats to my statement, if someone wants to pick it apart they can)
posted by 517 at 11:31 AM on August 13, 2011
Where would it go? How would it be affected?
In that case, an educated guess would be the dust and ashes spewed from the top of the volcano would have the potential to be biohazardous as well, aside from the fact that volcano ash has already proven itself to be deadly (Pompeii was buried in ash). Volcanic ash can be pulled into the atmosphere and be distributed over huge areas that can stay in the atmosphere for years. Assuming this ash is radioactive/biohazardous, you're in trouble. Add that to things like pumice that can be shot into the air and land several miles away from where it started (a volcanic eruption in Indonesia resulted in pumice being washed up in Australia).
But keep in mind this takes a huge explosion and other specifics to spew ash into the air capable of changing climate and shelling the surrounding area with rocks. Most volcanoes erupt in an oozing fashion with only localized ash distribution.
posted by dustpatterns at 11:38 AM on August 13, 2011
In that case, an educated guess would be the dust and ashes spewed from the top of the volcano would have the potential to be biohazardous as well, aside from the fact that volcano ash has already proven itself to be deadly (Pompeii was buried in ash). Volcanic ash can be pulled into the atmosphere and be distributed over huge areas that can stay in the atmosphere for years. Assuming this ash is radioactive/biohazardous, you're in trouble. Add that to things like pumice that can be shot into the air and land several miles away from where it started (a volcanic eruption in Indonesia resulted in pumice being washed up in Australia).
But keep in mind this takes a huge explosion and other specifics to spew ash into the air capable of changing climate and shelling the surrounding area with rocks. Most volcanoes erupt in an oozing fashion with only localized ash distribution.
posted by dustpatterns at 11:38 AM on August 13, 2011
The OP seems to be operating under the misconception that volcanoes are holes punched through the Earth's crust and opening directly into the mantle. This is false. Volcanoes are fed by magma chambers located in the crust, a few kilometers below the surface. The chambers are connected to the surface by narrow conduits. Material dumped into the caldera of a volcano will not travel down the magma conduit.
posted by Nomyte at 1:07 PM on August 13, 2011
posted by Nomyte at 1:07 PM on August 13, 2011
Would disposing of nuclear waste in a volcano cause radioactive material to rise into the atmosphere
Yes.
What would be the arguments against disposing of our nuclear waste into a volcano?
Well, that.
posted by atrazine at 2:22 PM on August 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
Yes.
What would be the arguments against disposing of our nuclear waste into a volcano?
Well, that.
posted by atrazine at 2:22 PM on August 13, 2011 [3 favorites]
Radioactive matter into an active volcano, no. But if, for the sake of argument, we crowbar the "volcano" portion of this question into "a volcano, or any high-temperature body of matter or plasma in the universe such as the sun," then, possibly, the answer may be yes. Assuming that the radioactive material could be propelled into the core of the sun, it might become consumed by the fusion reactions that occur there. But this is all science fiction, of course . . .
Not to mention an attempt at spinning this into something interesting.
posted by Gordion Knott at 3:31 PM on August 13, 2011
Not to mention an attempt at spinning this into something interesting.
posted by Gordion Knott at 3:31 PM on August 13, 2011
what would happen to radioactive material if put into a volcano...How would it be affected?
It would not be affected at all. If you threw lead into a volcano it wouldn't turn to gold, right? Likewise throwing plutonium into a volcano won't turn it into a stable isotope of lead.
Throwing biological weapons in a volcano might make sense - the heat would sterilize them. Not good sense mind you, but it should do the job.
Assuming that the radioactive material could be propelled into the core of the sun, it might become consumed by the fusion reactions that occur there.
I'm not sure about that, but I think you're right. Our sun cannot and will never be able to produce high atomic weight atoms, correct? It takes a supernova to make uranium. But at the core of the sun we'd see heaps of neutrons flying about as fusion byproducts, also correct? Those neutrons should cause radioactive nuclei of uranium to undergo fission (I assume the solar core can act as a moderator). Am I right in thinking that uranium would go to the end of its decay chain while stable isotopes of lead would survive?
If that's right, Superman can turn plutonium into lead by throwing it into the sun.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 3:45 PM on August 13, 2011
It would not be affected at all. If you threw lead into a volcano it wouldn't turn to gold, right? Likewise throwing plutonium into a volcano won't turn it into a stable isotope of lead.
Throwing biological weapons in a volcano might make sense - the heat would sterilize them. Not good sense mind you, but it should do the job.
Assuming that the radioactive material could be propelled into the core of the sun, it might become consumed by the fusion reactions that occur there.
I'm not sure about that, but I think you're right. Our sun cannot and will never be able to produce high atomic weight atoms, correct? It takes a supernova to make uranium. But at the core of the sun we'd see heaps of neutrons flying about as fusion byproducts, also correct? Those neutrons should cause radioactive nuclei of uranium to undergo fission (I assume the solar core can act as a moderator). Am I right in thinking that uranium would go to the end of its decay chain while stable isotopes of lead would survive?
If that's right, Superman can turn plutonium into lead by throwing it into the sun.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 3:45 PM on August 13, 2011
Nuclear waste != the One Ring.
posted by flabdablet at 6:43 PM on August 13, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 6:43 PM on August 13, 2011 [5 favorites]
For what its worth, I've always thought we should consider launching our nuclear waste into the sun.
posted by bluejayway at 11:07 AM on August 14, 2011
posted by bluejayway at 11:07 AM on August 14, 2011
For what its worth, I've always thought we should consider launching our nuclear waste into the sun.
which would be fine until you have a launch failure, and instead of just spreading a bunch of RP-1/LOX downrange, there's also a whole bunch of fallout from the waste payload you're incinerating in the atmosphere.
in 2002, there was 45000 tons of spent fuel in the US, growing at 2200 tons per year. the Falcon Heavy, when it makes it into production, is planned to be able to launch 15.5 tons to Mars (ie. out of Earth's gravity well, which would be ~ the launch capacity to the Sun). so the heaviest lift launch vehicle currently on the horizon would need > 140 launches per year just to keep up with waste production, plus 2900 launches to clear the storage backlog.
how much do you want to bet on that many launches without a single accident?
posted by russm at 5:10 PM on August 14, 2011
which would be fine until you have a launch failure, and instead of just spreading a bunch of RP-1/LOX downrange, there's also a whole bunch of fallout from the waste payload you're incinerating in the atmosphere.
in 2002, there was 45000 tons of spent fuel in the US, growing at 2200 tons per year. the Falcon Heavy, when it makes it into production, is planned to be able to launch 15.5 tons to Mars (ie. out of Earth's gravity well, which would be ~ the launch capacity to the Sun). so the heaviest lift launch vehicle currently on the horizon would need > 140 launches per year just to keep up with waste production, plus 2900 launches to clear the storage backlog.
how much do you want to bet on that many launches without a single accident?
posted by russm at 5:10 PM on August 14, 2011
Not many free neutrons in the sun. Most solar energy comes from the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle of catalyzed fusion. Even in proton-proton fusion there aren't free neutrons.
Also, if I remember correctly, it takes less energy to generate an orbit that leaves the solar system than to generate an orbit that decays into the sun.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 2:43 PM on August 21, 2011
Also, if I remember correctly, it takes less energy to generate an orbit that leaves the solar system than to generate an orbit that decays into the sun.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 2:43 PM on August 21, 2011
Also, if I remember correctly, it takes less energy to generate an orbit that leaves the solar system than to generate an orbit that decays into the sun.
Hmmm, that's an interesting point. By my calculations (based on this and this), delta-v to get from LEO to solar system escape is sqrt(10.9^2 + 42.1^2) - 8 = 35.5km/s, and according to this, delta-v from LEO to the sun is 30km/s. So it's close, but still marginally easier to get it into the sun.
posted by russm at 2:29 AM on August 25, 2011
Hmmm, that's an interesting point. By my calculations (based on this and this), delta-v to get from LEO to solar system escape is sqrt(10.9^2 + 42.1^2) - 8 = 35.5km/s, and according to this, delta-v from LEO to the sun is 30km/s. So it's close, but still marginally easier to get it into the sun.
posted by russm at 2:29 AM on August 25, 2011
« Older longest lasting un-natural color hair dye | Giving more than two weeks notice when quitting a... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
Are you assuming that somehow the heat of the magma renders the nuclear waste non-radioactive? That's not what happens.
Not really sure what the intent of the question is here but this is pretty much a non-starter.
posted by dfriedman at 11:15 AM on August 13, 2011 [1 favorite]