Ancestors

Toot

Written by Quixoticgeek on 2025-01-24 at 21:17

I wish we wouldn't talk about waste in terms of mass. 140 tons of plutonium! oooh, that sounds like it's loads.

Except plutonium is really dense. 140 tons is just over 7 cubic meters if you put it all together in one big block (don't do this, that's bad). You could fit that in a transit can (yeah it would break the suspension).

That's a surprisingly small pile in need of storing.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjr8lzyg299o

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from quixoticgeek@v.st

Descendants

Written by PalmAndNeedle on 2025-01-24 at 21:21

@quixoticgeek the volume is not the problem.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PalmAndNeedle@norden.social

Written by Quixoticgeek on 2025-01-24 at 21:29

@PalmAndNeedle finding a home for 7 cubic metres of waste sounds a lot less daunting to most people than finding a home for 140 tons...

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from quixoticgeek@v.st

Written by PalmAndNeedle on 2025-01-24 at 21:36

@quixoticgeek the volume is not the problem, the time scale is. That's where the danger lies. In the order of magnitude of years that this stuff is dangerous, not whether it's one or ten iso containers worth.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PalmAndNeedle@norden.social

Written by Quixoticgeek on 2025-01-24 at 22:02

@PalmAndNeedle yes, but the problem of digging a deep hole to hide 7 cubic meters of something is a lot more achievable sell than 140 cubic meters of something...

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from quixoticgeek@v.st

Written by PalmAndNeedle on 2025-01-24 at 22:12

@quixoticgeek no. Not when the problem is keeping that hole leak proof for generations. On that timescale, whether it's a 1, 10, or 100m^3 hole is inconsequential. You need the same systems and precautions, just on a slightly larger scale.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from PalmAndNeedle@norden.social

Written by Antonia :renfe_galleta_1971: on 2025-01-24 at 21:32

@quixoticgeek yeah, the nuclear waste a person generates over a year if they'd be getting 100% nuclear energy is about the size of a sugar cube... compare that to the size that the ~10 tons of CO2 this saved would take up, even as dry ice.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from antonia@zug.network

Written by Robin on 2025-01-25 at 03:37

@quixoticgeek

I have two cubes, each about 2.5cm^3, one is tungsten, the other is magnesium. I quite like the reaction when I put them in people's hands (for those who don't know, tungsten is quite heavy, magnesium is quite light.)

It's a good example of how similar looking things can be quite different.

=> More informations about this toot | More toots from eythian@teh.entar.net