4 ms·
I would like to argue that waiting for partitioning and transmutation technology to mature and temporarily storing the waste until then makes more sense than pu
by _Microft 7y ago
I would like to argue that waiting for partitioning and transmutation technology to mature and temporarily storing the waste until then makes more sense than putting nuclear waste into a place where we can not easily (or at all!) reach it when we can use it (and thereby actually solve the problem).
Some half-lifes are so long that just any progress over a fraction of these time-scales should be be enough to be better off to wait for the tech to be ready than to bury the material.
- progval 7y ago"temporarily storing the waste" is mostly what the US have done since the late 70s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_cask_storage#United_States Yucca Mountain was supposed to be the solution this temporary storage; but the budget for Yucca Mountain got suspended, so the US are back to the temporary solution. But postponing forever in the hope of a better solution is a bad solution; because in the meantime they are in unsafe locations.
- Kaiyou 7y agoNot forever, just for 200-500 years.
- choeger 7y agoTransmutation technology is inherently more dangerous than simple uran fission plants due to the problem of proliferation. A lot of nasty stuff, e.g., weapon-grade Plutonium, be cooked up in these transmutation plants on demand, AFAIK.