
Originally Posted by
Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by
Pong
Ah, but what if you do this on land? Say Hawaii. Open lava there, or, excavate nearby for stable opening. The nuclear waste we drop in should sink like a brick in a lake... a very deep lake.
That may work rather well, until the magma decides to have a hiccup, eruption, etc. I don't like that even with slim odds of occuring. It only takes once. That's why I prefer the deep ocean magma.
I should've said sink like a lead weight in a raging river.
Density of lava ~2.5. Density of uranium waste ~19. Provided a clear path down, no magma convections are going to play that up faster than it plummets. Even a "rapid" flow of magma feeding nearby lava eruptions. We can truly say bye bye to any uranium dropped into magma.
Surely we can find a suitable volcanic island. A lot these islands are uninhabited, so no biggy even in event of a spill. Nuclear testing in the Pacific, puts this in perspective.
We wouldn't have to dig deep. A good site could be 20 meters basalt over magma. Then a hole less than 1m diameter, the Navy could dig that with their new penetrator bombs if we're really scared. A refractory chute plus external heat source will keep the hole open and the magma soft. This is nothing foundry workers aren't exposed to every day. Then just keep bringing shiploads and feeding waste down the chute.
I'm thinking partnership between the big nuclear waste producers Japan, USA, and Russia, appropriately on one of the disputed southern Kuril islets. IAEA administration and safeguarding. This constructively resolves a territorial dispute, and effectively binds interested parties in trilateral agreement.