Nuclear 'Asteroids' Due In A Few Hundred Years 589
easyCoder writes "In this space.com article, it mentions a RORSAT satellite that has been leaking radioactive coolant, leaving little droplets of it in orbit around our planet. However, further down, it also mentions this, quoted here for maximum impact: 'After a RORSATs tour-of-duty was over, the reactor's fuel core was shot high above Earth into a "disposal orbit." Once at that altitude the power supply unit would take several hundred years before it reentered the Earth's atmosphere.' Wow. So ... our great-grandchildren can expect a lovely day, partly cloudy with the occasional nuclear reactor plummeting down from outer space."
I doubt it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe zap them with laser beams!
What about using the "Star Wars" lasers? (Score:2, Interesting)
Just how much material are we talking about here? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a pretty freaking big planet. If we're talking about 5kg of fissionables, that seems pretty small to me compared to the daily dosage the planet gets from the sun - although I do understand there's one hell of a difference between solar radiation and vaporous uranium - the latter's toxic as well as radioactive, iirc.
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The environmentalist, anti-nuke, anti-industry, anti-technology groups are going to do everything in their power to see that we don't.
And in a few hundred years... (Score:2, Interesting)
So who cares about a nuclear reactor floating out there somewhere in earth orbit?
-Grump
Re:Just how much material are we talking about her (Score:3, Interesting)
However.. the earths magnetic field, stratosphere and all of that other junk up there in the sky protects us from most of the most harmful damage of the sun, whereas 5KG of fissionables wouldnt be Dilluted by the earth's atmosphere!
A Bigger Problem: Critical Density. (Score:4, Interesting)
All our plans for regular space travel, not to mention all kinds of other space uses, will be in jeopardy. Paint chips, bolts, pieces of wire, etc. We need some really smart people thinking about a solution to this.
Alaska Village invited to test cheap, clean nuclear power [alaska-freegold.com]
Two conclusions: (Score:5, Interesting)
The above blatantly stolen from Einstein
Re:Ah yes... (Score:3, Interesting)
Onnel
Re:Simple-minded solution (Score:2, Interesting)
Grabbing the debris with a space shuttle right now (and in the time frame before it become dangerous) isn't going to politically fly. Not sure how much I agree with it given that the *should* be safe but the recent explosion doesn't really instill confidence. I don't know if any other countries orbiter has the capability to do it.
While I agree we have *many* shortsighted push it off to our great-great-grandchildren this may not be the case. If it can safely be pushed off until a good solution (not just a solution) is found then that may be the best answer. Without more information I wouldn't rule out either reason.
The hazard is to spacecraft, not us (Score:5, Interesting)
In no way will I excuse the extreme sloppiness of the Russians in all things nuclear, but the radiation hazard from these things has been greatly exaggerated to sell newspapers, books and TV spots. Several of these orbiting Soviet reactors failed to go into their disposal orbits and have already fallen back to earth -- and we're still here. Yes, you could say we were lucky that they fell in relatively remote areas. But most of the earth's surface is still sparsely populated (such as the 70% that's covered by water).
Another thing to remember about spent reactor fuel is that its radioactivity falls rapidly with time. While a reactor operates, a significant fraction of the generated power comes from the decay of short-lived fission products. This radioactive decay heat continues even after the chain reaction has been shut down; that's why emergency core cooling is so important in terrestrial reactors. Depending on the reactor design and the fuel, a few hundred years may be enough for its radioactivity to decay to that of the uranium ore from which it was originally made. This point is often lost in the shrill criticism of permanent high-level waste disposal sites.
I do have one question about the physical properties of the NaK coolant: what is its vapor pressure? This particular alloy was chosen partly because it's a liquid at or just above room temperature, so it must have some vapor pressure that would cause it to slowly sublime in the vacuum of space. That sublimation would occur much more quickly for small droplets than large. Anybody have numbers?
Re:More Asteroid Hemorrhoids (Score:2, Interesting)
The more crap we send up using our current technology, i.e. painted surfaces, fragile ceramics, bolts and wires, etc, etc. = the more crap we have to deal with, which hits something else we sent up and makes more of the same, and so on. Consider that a chip the size of a grain of sand is a serious hazard, let alone a sphere 2 inches in diameter. I've seen firsthand what a lowly 12.7 mm round can do here on Earth.
We (The citizens of Earth) have very few people looking for or otherwise working on such problems, or should I say solutions, just as we have very few resources dedicated to the problem posed by catastrophic events such as asteroids (NEO not withstanding-a valiant effort). I guess the general populace is conditioned to accept their eventual demise, and in the meantine the drugs flowing freely from everywhere will make them docile as lambs.
Jack O'Neill and the SG1 Team ain't gonna save us. There ain't no tomorrow land. The pocyclypse got rid of that. If you want to live, you need to learn how to find shelter, food, water, barter, and medicines from your environment. And we will need some geeks to survive, else we truly will be sent back to bone knives and sticks. For all we know, that has happened before.
-cp-
Re:Simple-minded solution (Score:3, Interesting)
The primary concern is that they are space debris and might hit other spacecraft.
Now you should consider that these droplets are accidentally released (maybe by a badly designed spacecraft, but certainly not on purpose).
Then look at the USA.
They PURPOSELY released a load of needles in space, with the naive idea that they would remain in a small cloud and could be used as a reflector for radio signals. This is also briefly mentioned in the article.
If anything can be called a mess, it was this "experiment". It has been a large contribution to space environment pollution.
So before you call the kettle black...
Re:Since no one read the damn article... (Score:2, Interesting)
You may also wish to consider your manners. Telling people not to speak again until they meet some arbitrary condition imposed by yourself is generally considered to be rude and, not to mention, oppressive. People in most nations these days enjoy what's known as the freedom of speech. The Marines you hold so highly are charged with, among other things, upholding these freedoms which you so easily discard. Your perceived offence at something as trivial as a username has no place in a public forum unless you actually enjoy embarassing yourself by airing all your insecurities.
Re:why this is hooey (Score:5, Interesting)
I already run biodiesel in my car. It goes better than it does on the gunk they sell in petrol stations, and it's closer to carbon-neutral than fossil fuels. So, it's win-win. Only drawback is that when you sit for a minute to let the turbo cool before you switch off, the smell of chips, or popcorn, or pakora, or whatever was cooked in the oil, makes you *really* hungry...
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah it's pretty scary stuff.
I found it interesting that all of the energy sources that we currently preceive as being 'alternative' are actually dependant on oil for a number of reasons.
I actually haven't seen a decent rebutal for it yet, and I'm looking for one - mainly to calm my nerves. So anyone out there who has a rational rebutal - not just a "he's a crank" jab, please either post it here or post a link to it or something.
Trouble is, deep down, I know he's right. Many scientists have been warning for decades now that we simply can't continue our dependance on oil and expect to come out on top. I believe one of the US's presidential candidates ran a whole campaign around the issue - and lost by a landslide. Sad.
Anyway, bring on the rational, critical analysis, all you right-wing bomb-dropping hippy-whipping gun-toting bastards!
Re:They'll be able to deal with it.... MAYBE (Score:1, Interesting)
Do The Math (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll bite ... (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know if the following will be much of a rebuttal, but it might calm your nerves a bit.
To the key to understanding the article is this paragraph:
The human spirit is capable of some miraculous things. We need a miracle right now, so the human spirit had better get its' ass in gear, pronto.
The author is trying to shake us up into action. That doesn't mean that the science behind his polemic is necessarily incorrect, but it does mean that scientific correctness isn't his priority.
On the whole I do agree with much of what he says. Concept of Peak Oil is credible, that's how finite resources and geometrical growth work. The world economy is based on oil and oil shortage in inevitable.
What I don't agree is the decree to which we can cope with the depletion. The author calls alternative energy sources a hoax. According to him, for various reason, alternative energy sources aren't practical replacements for oil. I don't find his arguments convincing.
I won't suggests that there is a single solution, like going all-out nuclear, but I will suggest that there doesn't need to be a single solution. Rather there will a whole host of solutions, competing but at the same time complementary.
The author suggests that oil is necessary predicate for all the other energy sources. This is not true. Oil just is the cheapest energy source currently, so it is used in all manufacturing extensively. There is nothing to prevent us using, for example, electrical energy from a nuclear reactor to build solar panels or to operate a thermal depolymerization facility to "recycle" oil for the uses that oil is essential for.
The author does not factor in increased efficiency in, well, just about everything. We can do more with less and the evolution will not stop.
Also written off is voluntary conservation of energy by, for example, speeding limits that are build into cars.
I think the author underestimates our ability (as a species) to adept. I don't buy the part that oil depletion will devastate our economy and cripple our ability to implement renewables (that is build the infrastructure for harvesting and distributing the energy for alternative/renewable source). Have you ever considered how much dead weight there is in our economy? How much untapped economical potential there is even in the most advanced western societies? What is the portion of workforce that are involved in fields essential for survival (agriculture, energy supply, industry and manufacture (including distribution))? I'm not saying that our society will not change, but I'm confident that in a pinch we will be able to tighten our collective belts. A new Great Depression maybe, massive die-off very unlikely.
--Flam
Re:Lets keep this a secret (Score:5, Interesting)
Here [8k.com] Here [imakenews.com] and here [vanderbilt.edu] for example.
It is true that any ionizing radiation can damage cellular material, but the human immune system seems to derive benefit from practicing fending off such low-level damage.
The evididence is not conclusive for low-level radiation benefits, but there are several good studies that suggest that it is, and not one scientific study that suggest the opposite as far as I know. If so, I would like to see it. Nearly all nuclear radiation threat assesments is based on extrapolation from high-level radiation exposes.
Re:why this is hooey (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny, I thought the real drawback was that producing an organic oil takes more energy than you'll recieve from burning it...
Until we have lunar fusion plants beaming us energy on giant lasers, the production costs of artificial oil won't be worth it.
Re:why this is hooey (Score:2, Interesting)
No, you're the one stating a fallacy. By oversimplfying to an incorrect definition of "run out", you have twisted the meaning of a claim. "Earth running out of oil" doesn't mean there are zero petroleum molecules left on the entire planet! It means we humans won't be able to acquire oil to use.
Consider a single modern automobile. As you drive it, petrol is used up. Does it ever run out of petrol? According to your argument, it never does, because there's always some miniscule amount left in the tank, even if it can't be reached for use.
Re:Insignificant (Score:3, Interesting)
No that's incorrect. According to the UN, the US pumped [un.org] 5.8 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere in 2000. Volcanism is a huge contribution to CO2 production, but the human race produces more. The US in the above report increased its CO2 production rate by roughly 15% from 1990 to 2000. Alternate sources peg the CO2 release in the same neighborhood [gcrio.org] (estimates 5.5 billion tons of the carbon portion of CO2 released into the atmosphere - that's roughly 20 billion tons of CO2 released globally per year. In comparison, natural volcanic activity [usgs.gov] releases around 130-230 million tons of CO2 per year on average.