3 ms·
The bigger cost is storage. Very long term storage. Fuel recycling and alternate fuels such as thorium might reduce storage burden by being able to burn up plu
by chaimanmeow 4y ago
The bigger cost is storage. Very long term storage.
Fuel recycling and alternate fuels such as thorium might reduce storage burden by being able to burn up plutonium waste from traditional nuke plants.
- panick21_ 4y agoNo it isn't. The cost isn't high at all. Even the current spent fuel is tiny in volume and tiny in storage cost. They are literally a bunch of cask on a parking lot. All of Switzerlands fuel for 50+ years is literally in one storage building. The US has already collected a huge amount of money that could be invested in solution but they just leave it on a parking lot. And if we are going to use nuclear for the long term, using that 'waste' as fuel is clearly the thing to do, and we can simply burn all that stuff up and the remaining fuel only needs to be stored for 300 years. Thorium is not needed for this, just better reactors.