4 ms·
> nuclear waste (we just don't have a solution Yes we do. I post this is almost every thread about nuclear power, and it seems I find new people each time. If
by ars 5y ago
> nuclear waste (we just don't have a solution
Yes we do. I post this is almost every thread about nuclear power, and it seems I find new people each time.
If you combine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor you have essentially zero nuclear waste, and you also need something like 98% less Uranium.
This is a completely solved problem.
> On top of that, nuclear power plants don't work well together with renewables, as they can't switch their output level enough.
This isn't true either.
It's like everyone's opinion of nuclear power is stuck in the past, and no one can ever update their info.
- _ph_ 5y agoPlease point me out to any operating breeding reactor and how much nuclear fuel it can process. The French shut down their breeding reactors long ago, the only existing ones I know of are Russian, right now they are an even worse reference. I don't doubt they could be built, but the question is, what would they cost? Please point me out to a nuclear reactor design that can be switched from 100% to 0% in the matter of hours and back again.
- Joeri 5y agoWell, talk about not updating your info. The vision of reprocessing + breeder reactors is straight out of 1960. Several countries spent many billions and many decades trying to make it work, and discovered that it was safer and cheaper to keep using conventional light water reactors. Nothing has really changed that makes this concept more feasible.