3 ms·
This takes decades. The plume was largely concentrated over a few dozen km and couple hundred m deep when it hit california five years later. And actually signi
by Schroedingersat 4y ago
This takes decades. The plume was largely concentrated over a few dozen km and couple hundred m deep when it hit california five years later. And actually significant spill would be orders of magnitude worse.
This is also why mass expansion of reprocessing facilities is completely untenable.
- AtlasBarfed 4y agoWhich is why any next-gen nuclear should be doing near-complete fuel consumption. Solid fuel rods aren't going to cut it. Liquid / molten salts can be reprocessed "online" and the fission products extracted (yeah, handwaves a LOT of chemistry), so you don't get these partially transmuted solid rods. Even if you have solid rods or solid pebbles doing the primary power, maybe you can have a secondary on-site molten processor to take care of the waste without it shipping. One of the annoying aspects of arguing with pro-nuclear people is their blind spot for reprocessing/waste. It just gets shrugged/handwaved away, but to the voting public, having a reactor that produces no waste in the traditional solid fuel sense would be a political boon. The real issue is that nuclear simply isn't price competitive, it barely beats coal. I would like it to be otherwise.
- Schroedingersat 4y agoSafe single fluid LFRs are scifi. Two fluid ones have worse reprocessing problems than solid fuel. It would be nice, but the list of reasons which are sufficient to stop it happening is very long.