3 ms·
A lot of the fuel can be recycled and doesn't need to be stored for thousands of years. Storing the remainder underground is mostly a one-off cost except for so
by jcfrei 5y ago
A lot of the fuel can be recycled and doesn't need to be stored for thousands of years. Storing the remainder underground is mostly a one-off cost except for some monitoring. It's a solved problem and only public misconceptions about tectonics and radioactivity are holding it back.
- perlgeek 5y ago> A lot of the fuel can be recycled and doesn't need to be stored for thousands of years. But is it, actually? The amount of nuclear waste in interim storage speaks against it. > It's a solved problem It is certainly not. For example in Germany there's only one terminal storage facility, and it's already showing problems, less than half a century in. And we thought/hoped it could last for tens of thousands of years. Maybe a case could be made that in ideal conditions, technical solutions exist, but I'm not aware of any actually viable solutions. (Note that a solution isn't viable from a public relations POV, it's NOT an actually viable solution).
- jcfrei 5y ago> But is it, actually? The amount of nuclear waste in interim storage speaks against it. No, there aren't a lot of breeder reactors running. But that's just because there hasn't been any pressure to develop them commercially. > but I'm not aware of any actually viable solutions. Check out the Onkalo fuel repository: https://www.posiva.fi/en/index.html https://www.posiva.fi/en/index.html