4 ms·
Nuclear reactors produce so little waste that I very much doubt that storing the waste would be the main cost. It's even likely that some of the spent fuel woul
by Mirioron 8y ago
Nuclear reactors produce so little waste that I very much doubt that storing the waste would be the main cost. It's even likely that some of the spent fuel would simply be used in newer reactors later.
- Retric 8y agoSpent fuel is a small portion of the waste generated. Even equipment used to decommission a nuclear reactor becomes contaminated. It’s not that dangerous for very long, but safe disposal is still expensive.
- Retric 8y agoNot sure why that was downvoted, it’s easy to demonstrate with even minimal research. From a pro nuclear website: 97% of the waste produced is classified as low- or intermediate-level waste (LLW or ILW). Such waste has been widely disposed of in near-surface repositories for many years. In France, where fuel is reprocessed, just 0.2% of all radioactive waste by volume is classified as high-level waste (HLW) http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
- adrianN 8y agoThe claim is that the most expensive part is storing the waste for 10000 years. All LLW and ILW doesn't have to be stored that long.
- Retric 8y agoILW and HLW are generally assumed to both be stored in the same areas long term. Which means they are about as expensive to deal with long term. For example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository#/media/File%3AYucca_Mountain_-_Nuclear_Waste_Repository.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste...