3 ms·

>Invest in small-scale, distributed breeder reactors. Store waste (the little amount that there is) in old oil wells/mines. I believe completely that nuclear p

>Invest in small-scale, distributed breeder reactors. Store waste (the little amount that there is) in old oil wells/mines. I believe completely that nuclear power is the way forward for us, but your assumptions here are just bonkers. Breeder reactors of any kind are a proliferation risk. We also don't need them. Thorium fueled reactors are a better choice, both for the availability of fuel and the lowered risk. Storing nuclear waste in any location not designed to store waste is just stupid. Oil wells aren't big holes where nothing exists once the oil is gone, putting anything in them probably affects aquifers locally (see fracking). Plus to store waste in a well we'd have to liquify it, making it more likely to leak. We also would have no way to really determine if it's leaking or if it's not, plus no way to deal with it if it does leak. Mines are about as bad... even placing waste in a very stable, dry mine could leave it prone to escaping and travelling elsewhere. The problem isn't finding a place to put the stuff that's out of the way, it's building a place to put it that will not allow it to leak/migrate for a significant amount of time. Yucca mountain would have been good, but the NIMBY crowd is too afraid of waste to store it there. Fortunately, newer reactor designs produce less waste. It's still a concern, though, and not anywhere near as easy to deal with as you're making it.

jabl 5y ago
> Breeder reactors of any kind are a proliferation risk. We also don't need them. Thorium fueled reactors are a better choice, both for the availability of fuel and the lowered risk. The Thorium fuel cycle is, by definition, a breeding fuel cycle because Th doesn't naturally contain any fissile isotopes. U-233, which is the fissile isotope that is the actual fuel in the Th cycle, is perfectly fine as a bomb material, so you have similar proliferation worries as with a U-Pu fuel cycle.
- Accujack 5y ago
  Not quite similar, depending on reactor design - less plutonium production for one thing, and less transuranic waste, too.
lodovic 5y ago
Why not send nuclear waste into space? I know it's expensive and risky, but we won't leave it for future generations to deal with.
- loeg 5y ago
  It’s a lot of mass to lift; current rocket fuel (RP-1 is kerosene) produces CO2; and rockets occasionally explode and distribute their contents over a wide area. Also, what, you want to leave a bunch of radioactive waste in orbit? Lifting it out of the earth’s gravity well takes a lot of fuel, and then it’s still in a near-earth solar orbit. No thanks.

jabl 5y ago

> Breeder reactors of any kind are a proliferation risk. We also don't need them. Thorium fueled reactors are a better choice, both for the availability of fuel and the lowered risk. The Thorium fuel cycle is, by definition, a breeding fuel cycle because Th doesn't naturally contain any fissile isotopes. U-233, which is the fissile isotope that is the actual fuel in the Th cycle, is perfectly fine as a bomb material, so you have similar proliferation worries as with a U-Pu fuel cycle.

Accujack 5y ago
Not quite similar, depending on reactor design - less plutonium production for one thing, and less transuranic waste, too.

lodovic 5y ago

Why not send nuclear waste into space? I know it's expensive and risky, but we won't leave it for future generations to deal with.

loeg 5y ago
It’s a lot of mass to lift; current rocket fuel (RP-1 is kerosene) produces CO2; and rockets occasionally explode and distribute their contents over a wide area. Also, what, you want to leave a bunch of radioactive waste in orbit? Lifting it out of the earth’s gravity well takes a lot of fuel, and then it’s still in a near-earth solar orbit. No thanks.