6 ms·

It's not even an actual "waste". Given a proper nuclear cycle and a proper diversity of reactors, you can both extract precious isotopes and reuse "waste" as f

It's not even an actual "waste". Given a proper nuclear cycle and a proper diversity of reactors, you can both extract precious isotopes and reuse "waste" as fuel for another kind of reactor. AFAIK, Russia, for example, had got extremely good at cycling nuclear materials. I assume it is due to the fact that after Chernobyl they were actually forced to invest in nuclear energy due to safety reasons, rather then abandon it.

ricardobeat 5y ago
The detail you’re overlooking is that it stays active for thousands of years, so even a small volume will end up being very costly. And other countries have much higher volume of waste stored, how about 40000m3? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morsleben_radioactive_waste_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morsleben_radioactive_waste_...
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  The most radioactive fraction has relatively short lifetimes. (There is only so much energy that can be radiated out.) Even the Elephant's Foot in Chernobyl is much less radioactive now, mere 35 years after the accident. The less radioactive fraction will indeed stay active for thousands of years, but its level of radiation will be closer to natural sources than to an atomic bomb.
  - thriftwy 5y ago
    There's a sour spot of isotopes with half-lives of 1-100 thousands years, these are still very radioactive but will not decay in any forseeable future.
jhgb 5y ago
Uh, there's plenty of spent fuel components that aren't fissile. It's not a perpetual motion machine. So to say that it's not "actual waste" is rather unhelpful.
- adrianN 5y ago
  A breeder reactor can extract fifty to a hundred times more energy from nuclear fuel than the reactors we're currently using. What's left after the breeder is through has relatively short half life and needn't be stored "forever".
  - jhgb 5y ago
    All that a breeder does is that it consumes U238 in addition to U235 (in much higher quantities than a non-breeder, of course). I don't quite see how this changes the amount of actual waste per unit of energy generated. Which means that a breeder will decrease the amount of uranium that you need to mine, but that's about it. Your "soup" of fission products will be very similar between Pu239 and U235 fission, so what you're saying about "what's left [having] relatively short half life" works for current non-breeder reactors as well. And activation products I imagine are almost the same. (Why wouldn't they be?)
    - fuoqi 5y ago
      No. Read about "burner" reactors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio...
      - jhgb 5y ago
        You're talking about fast-neutron reactors, not about breeder reactors. Fast-neutron reactors can split certain actinides that thermal reactors won't split, but a fast-neutron reactor doesn't have to be a breeder and a breeder doesn't have to be a fast-neutron reactor. In fact, when it comes to fast-neutron reactors, a burner (which consumers fissionable actinides you put in it) is the exact opposite of breeder (which produces more fissionable actinides than you put in it initially). Not quite sure how you mixed that up.
        fuoqi 5y ago
        AFAIK most fast-neutron reactors can be used as both burners and breeders depending on loaded blanket. The same neutron flux can be used to split actinides and transform U238. The planned BREST reactor is a good example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)

ricardobeat 5y ago

The detail you’re overlooking is that it stays active for thousands of years, so even a small volume will end up being very costly. And other countries have much higher volume of waste stored, how about 40000m3? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morsleben_radioactive_waste_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morsleben_radioactive_waste_...

inglor_cz 5y ago
The most radioactive fraction has relatively short lifetimes. (There is only so much energy that can be radiated out.) Even the Elephant's Foot in Chernobyl is much less radioactive now, mere 35 years after the accident. The less radioactive fraction will indeed stay active for thousands of years, but its level of radiation will be closer to natural sources than to an atomic bomb.
- thriftwy 5y ago
  There's a sour spot of isotopes with half-lives of 1-100 thousands years, these are still very radioactive but will not decay in any forseeable future.

jhgb 5y ago

Uh, there's plenty of spent fuel components that aren't fissile. It's not a perpetual motion machine. So to say that it's not "actual waste" is rather unhelpful.

adrianN 5y ago
A breeder reactor can extract fifty to a hundred times more energy from nuclear fuel than the reactors we're currently using. What's left after the breeder is through has relatively short half life and needn't be stored "forever".
- jhgb 5y ago
  All that a breeder does is that it consumes U238 in addition to U235 (in much higher quantities than a non-breeder, of course). I don't quite see how this changes the amount of actual waste per unit of energy generated. Which means that a breeder will decrease the amount of uranium that you need to mine, but that's about it. Your "soup" of fission products will be very similar between Pu239 and U235 fission, so what you're saying about "what's left [having] relatively short half life" works for current non-breeder reactors as well. And activation products I imagine are almost the same. (Why wouldn't they be?)
  - fuoqi 5y ago
    No. Read about "burner" reactors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reduction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Waste_reductio...
    - jhgb 5y ago
      You're talking about fast-neutron reactors, not about breeder reactors. Fast-neutron reactors can split certain actinides that thermal reactors won't split, but a fast-neutron reactor doesn't have to be a breeder and a breeder doesn't have to be a fast-neutron reactor. In fact, when it comes to fast-neutron reactors, a burner (which consumers fissionable actinides you put in it) is the exact opposite of breeder (which produces more fissionable actinides than you put in it initially). Not quite sure how you mixed that up.
      - fuoqi 5y ago
        AFAIK most fast-neutron reactors can be used as both burners and breeders depending on loaded blanket. The same neutron flux can be used to split actinides and transform U238. The planned BREST reactor is a good example here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BREST_(reactor)