3 ms·
>waste handling is still not a solved problem Yes, yes it is. 1. There are a number of sites that have the geological stability and impermeability for long te
by rekabis 4y ago
>waste handling is still not a solved problem
Yes, yes it is.
1. There are a number of sites that have the geological stability and impermeability for long term storage.
2. Thorium reactors can take nuclear waste products and re-process them down (along side their standard thorium fuel) into “radioactive waste” that only needs a century or two of minimal safe storage before it’s harmless.
3. Modern _non-breeder_ reactors produce very little of the severe waste that needs billions of years of storage. Problem is, many current reactors in the States are breeder reactors that are _meant_ to help build nuclear weapons, and so are optimized to produce massive amounts of highly radioactive waste.
- loopback_device 4y ago> 1. There are a number of sites that have the geological stability and impermeability for long term storage. And yet, not one of them has been developed into a storage facility so far. Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32471115 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32471115 – having prospective storage sites that look nice and stable is great and all, just not the current reality, and likely also not a near-future reality. > 2. Thorium reactors can take nuclear waste products and re-process them down Would be good to have them, not a single one commercially operating at the moment though. China has apparently built a test reactor recently – curious to see how that develops.
- EricE 4y agoBetter hope China doesn't do more than build a test reactor. Cheap and abundant energy is what built the west. China is poised to severely lap the rest of the world while we continue to point fingers and argue :p