Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cica!iuvax!uceng!dmocsny
From: dmocsny@uceng.UC.EDU (daniel mocsny)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: proposed "space-mail" incentive
Summary: Hazardous Waste Ideas
Message-ID: <3188@uceng.UC.EDU>
Date: 22 Dec 89 21:35:18 GMT
References: <5711@ncar.ucar.edu> <330@hermix.UUCP>
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati, College of Engg.
Lines: 29

In article <330@hermix.UUCP>, jay@hermix.UUCP (Jay Skeer) writes:
>   2) Hazardous waist disposal
>There might be a possibility here. Anyone know how much waist disposal costs?
>But what about launch risks? Cristics complain about carefully build low mass
> radioactive substances.  Who would complain about tons of stuff, all of it
> really nasty?

Hazardous waste treatment is a complex field. Since almost any
compound or element in pure form has some sort of commercial value,
most waste streams contain otherwise valuable (but dangerous)
compounds or elements in dilute form. The stream is "waste" because
the cost of separating the stream into its constituents is higher than
the market value of those components. In other words, a "waste"
is a raw material you aren't smart enough to use yet.

The cost of launching a unit mass into space is (and will remain) much
higher than the cost of running that mass through almost any
commercial process. Therefore, to conserve launch costs, we would want
to process waste streams to extract only the least valuable and most
dangerous components for space disposal. But since this is not
economical to do already, what's the point? 

The best way to reduce process waste is to (1) run your plants tighter
(remember, industry has to pay for every pound of waste, even if
disposal is free, because it has to make the waste out of something),
and/or (2) design new processes with higher yields.

Dan Mocsny
dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu