3 ms·
A considerable part of the waste can be reprocessed and further burned in fast breeder reactors, creating fuel for the conventional ones. The rest can be vitrif
by petre 8y ago
A considerable part of the waste can be reprocessed and further burned in fast breeder reactors, creating fuel for the conventional ones. The rest can be vitrified and stored. Why we don't already do this? Fear of nuclear proliferation, breeders are quite expensive, anti nuclear sentiment.
- rocqua 8y agoWhat are the radioactive properties of the end product like? E.g. does this produce waste with longer half lives? Lower initial radiation?
- petre 8y agohttps://youtu.be/rv-mFSoZOkE https://youtu.be/rv-mFSoZOkE Longer half-lives = less radioactivity.
- DennisP 8y agoThe waste from fast reactors is just the fission products. It's about 1% as much waste by volume as conventional reactors. Encased it in glass, and the overall mix will be back to the radioactivity of the original ore in a couple centuries. The waste from conventional reactors is the fission products plus lots of U238, a fair amount of plutonium, some U235, and various transuranics. The transuranics and plutonium are the really long-lived radioactive waste.
- pfdietz 8y agoWe don't reprocess spent fuel because it's a net economic loss to do so. The separated plutonium is sufficiently difficult to turn into fuel that, far from saving money, it costs more than just enriching fresh uranium.