You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
8 points

I mean yeah…

Because that part should be…

I mean, statistically speaking I’m probably the only person that will see this thread that had the US government drop over six figures on teaching nuclear engineering…

But feel to do some googling about reusing spent fuel to verify for yourself.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

This is the part that has always confused me. Radioactive “waste” should either be radioactive enough that it can continue to be used in some capacity, or it’s inert enough that it’s not too complicated to just bury it, given the relatively small scale. I guess I assumed that there must have been a large gap between being useful and being inert and that must have been the problem with managing waste, but if spent fuel can be refined back into new fuel and inert waste, then I don’t see the issue.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-1 points
*

I guess I assumed that there must have been a large gap between being useful and being inert

It’s a matter of money and access.

If you can get nuclear fuel, it’s cheaper/easier to buy new.

But it’s not like we can’t just not use money as the sole deciding factor on whether we recycle or bury in a mountain.

But like, say you have 100% pure fuel and use it till it’s 50%, it’s not like you use it from the top down, it’s on an atom by atom basis throughout the fuel. So the more you use it before you refine again, the harder it is for it to be cost effective.

That’s why while we sell the “used” fuel from military ships, the stuff in an civilian reactor gets thrown under a mountain. The military want to keep theirs “topped off” in case new fuel becomes inaccessible.

We could easily change the pipeline to:

Military use > civilian use > refinement > military use

And just keep adding more fissible material as needed.

It might not be “cost effective” but it completely elimates the nuclear waste issue. It just all comes down to the price our leaders put on the environment.

Quick edit:

Obviously refinement isn’t as easy as popping it into a microwave for five minutes, and comes with it’s own energy needs and other things that would effect if we should do this, nothing is a perfect solution.

But if we’re just talking about eliminating nuclear waste, this is a valid path.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Thank you for the explanation! I really believe we need to invest in refinement tech to get more use out of fuel instead of worrying about how to infinitely store (and therefore waste) still-useful fuel.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 554K

    Comments