4 ms·

> Right now nuclear waste can and should be recycled which would reduce the amount of waste But it's not, and even when it was it would just reduce the amount

• opo 9y ago
  >But it's not, Reprocessing is done in various countries around the world though right now it is cheaper to refine new ore. >...Also it would make the whole nuclear energy economically unfeasible. The fuel cost is a small part of the cost so I am not sure why you think it would be "economically unfeasible". Over time it will likely become cheaper and as we continue to use uranium, that price will likely rise so the economics will likely shift. >...From your linked article: "At present there are no Integral Fast Reactors in commercial operation". Sigh. I was hoping that you were actually interested in having a dialogue and understanding the current state of things and where they will be in a few decades. When you ignore what I write and cherry pick responses, it looks more like you have a deeply held belief and it really doesn't matter what anyone says to you. What I wrote was "Soon it will be possible to use most of the waste as fuel:" - I did not say a 4th gen reactor that could burn waste was running right now. Most of the designs being worked on are generally not expected to be available for construction until the 2020s. Do you have any evidence that we can't store nuclear waste on site until a 4th gen reactor would be available? >...Nuclear power currently is not safe, waste storage is a problem, and it's not by any means economical. NOTHING is "safe" the way you define it. Walking across carries some risk, flying in a plane carries risk. The only thing you can do is to compare something it against its alternatives - flying a plane to go across the country is definitely safer than driving. When making a choice you need to worry about relative risk - rather than stay away from airplanes because they aren't "safe". Waste storage from any industrial process is a "problem" - the difference between nuclear and coal is that the industry and its regulators take the waste issue seriously and make sure no one is hurt by it. "and it's not by any means economical." - citation needed. France gets a majority of their power through nuclear power and has lower rates for electricity than its neighbors: >...France enjoys one of the lowest electricity prices in Europe; at 14.72 euro cents per kWh, the average cost of electricity in France is 26.5% cheaper than the EU average (20.02 euro cents per kWh). https://en.selectra.info/energy-france/guides/electricity-cost https://en.selectra.info/energy-france/guides/electricity-co... (France also reprocesses nuclear waste.) Your original comment was "When you show me how to safely store radioactive waste for the thousands of years that are required to make it safe, I consider nuclear power as a safe effective and economically viable option." I have given you evidence that your original premise is false - we won't need to store high level wastes for "thousands of years". As I said, while there are issues with nuclear power, the worry people have about nuclear waste is greatly overblown to say the least. Hundreds of thousands of people have died from hydroelectric accidents, literally millions have died from burning fossil fuels, etc - in comparison I've never read of anyone who died from nuclear waste.