I’m having trouble wrapping my head around the scale of the problem of nuclear waste. If we took all the nuclear waste produced in a year and evenly blended it into all gasoline burned in a year would the radiation be deadly? Dangerous? Detectable?

It’s easiest to get numbers for the US.

2 000 000 kg of waste per year

510 000 000 000 Liters of gasoline

Obviously this isn’t a real proposal, although I think it would reduce carbon emissions…

  • habanhero
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Is your proposal basically to burn away nuclear waste? Why is the gasoline important?

    Few issues I see:

    • I don’t think such waste can be disposed safety by incineration. Because if it could, we’ve have done so already. It’s probably the go to solution when it comes to waste disposal, apart from just burying it or dumping it in the ocean.

    • The main problem is the safety and handling of such radioactive waste. You do not want it anywhere near people and that’s why it’s isolated. They are highly dangerous. Do you want such a substance sitting in your vehicle, garage, gas station with high traffic, etc? The radioactive substance doesn’t just go away when you add gasoline to it.

    • Even assuming we can get past the safety issues, the said mixture will likely not work in vehicles at all, or would destroy your engine.

    • How would this reduce carbon emissions? You are still burning gasoline except it’s radioactive gasoline.

    • m0darnOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Is your proposal basically to burn away nuclear waste?

      No. It’s to disperse it.

      The main problem is the safety and handling of such radioactive waste.

      It was very much not meant as a serious proposal.

      How would this reduce carbon emissions?

      Do you want such a substance sitting in your vehicle, garage, gas station with high traffic, etc

      • habanhero
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        No. It’s to disperse it.

        It was very much not meant as a serious proposal.

        Okay good. The joke was lost on me, I thought this was a serious post. Didn’t expect it in AskScience.

        • m0darnOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          11 months ago

          Well it’s serious in that I would like to know how radioactive 2 million kilograms of nuclear waste mixed into 500 billion liters of gasoline would be.

          I guess it’s 4 milligrams per liter. So a grain of sand per liter. My car is in the garage with a 40 liter gas tank. So 40 gains of sand worth of nuclear waste. How dangerous is that? Is it like evacuate the neighborhood, or is it don’t plan any long road trips.

          • habanhero
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            I’m not sure why you think dispersing nuclear waste into our environment instead of isolating it is a good idea.

            If it’s just a thought experiment from a mathematical / chemical perspective, maybe someone else would like to take on the question and do the math.

            From a sociological and logistical perspective, it’s just not gonna happen. Pretty sure people’s tolerance for radioactive materials anywhere near them is zero. There isn’t any amount of radioactivity / danger that is considered socially acceptable.