3 ms·
A major thing to consider when talking about nuclear waste is the difference between waste and spent fuel. Spent fuel is relatively low quantity (but more dange
by parineum 5y ago
A major thing to consider when talking about nuclear waste is the difference between waste and spent fuel. Spent fuel is relatively low quantity (but more dangerous and short lived) whereas "waste" is any material contaminated by the reactor. The waste is typically much safer but is radioactive for much longer.
The perception of nuclear waste seems to be that it will melt your hand off if you touch it for the next 10,000 years but the reality is that the things that are that radioactive don't have that long of a half life. The waste, which has a much longer half life, is, by definition, much less radioactive. The longer it takes to decay, the less radioactive it is. I think this is a very big factor is the public perception of nuclear waste disposal.
I found this[1] article that has a pretty solid breakdown of it.
[1] https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2021-11-30/Key-facts-about-spent-nuclear-fuel.html https://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2021-11-30/Key-facts-abou...
- dylan604 5y agoYour post seems to imply logical decisions can be made if people were better informed. Boy, I sure wish that were true. Society seems to have moved well past logic and reason for pretty much any topic. The FUD around nuclear power was one of the first social issue that has sound scientific data that was totally ignored because of the fearmongering.
- __turbobrew__ 5y agoWhen I toured the Hanford nuclear site I got the impression that the nuclear waste is much harder to handle in the short term (much higher reactivity, much of it is in a liquid state, much of it contains very reactive solvents used in the purification process) but as you say it will be inert in a much shorter time frame. They were talking about encasing this waste in a silica/glass blob for easier handling.