5 ms·

The big lie is calling it waste; "partially spent fuel" is more accurate. As pointed out in the video re-processing the fuel gets all of the usable fissile mate

by mikece 3y ago

The big lie is calling it waste; "partially spent fuel" is more accurate. As pointed out in the video re-processing the fuel gets all of the usable fissile material out; what's not mentioned in the video is that further chemical processing can neutralize the remaining radioactivity and leave the final waste product as inert glass pellets. We're barely tapping the potential of uranium-based nuclear power and have yet to begin with thorium. Zero-emission, cheap, and super-abundant electricity via nuclear has been possible for decades... but politics.

magic_hamster 3y ago
"Possible" in this context is tricky. Scientifically possible, maybe so. But the effort and time required to build the facilities including treatment of "partially spent fuel" makes it realistically very hard. If memory serves, Germany just powered down a significant portion of their nuclear power plants, and those already had the sunken cost put into them, they were built and operating. We might eventually see a widespread use of nuclear power but climate change will have to kick our ass a little first.
- Manuel_D 3y ago
  It's not only possible, it has been actually carried out in dozens of facilities across the world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing As nuclear has been neglected in recent decades it's cheaper to mine uranium than reprocess, but it's by no means an experimental or prototype technology. Climate change will probably spur growth in intermittent sources in the short term, since politicians are usually optimizing for the next election cycle, but eventually peak production times will become saturated and the infeasibility of energy storage in regions within the hydroelectric power will become clear. Effectively all countries that have decarbonized their electricity sector have done so through a mix of hydroelectric power and nuclear power.
  - Schroedingersat 3y ago
    Why are nukebros incapable of comprehending the difference between fissile and fertile?
    - Manuel_D 3y ago
      A fissile isotope can readily undergo fission reaction, and a fertile isotope can be converted into a fertile isotope via neutron capture (this is how plutonium is made for nuclear bombs). Neutron capture is not part of the main waste reprocessing method [1], the neutron capture already happened in the reactor. Reprocessing separates the plutonium and other byproducts from the remaining uranium 235 fuel before the latter is re-used, no fertile material is being converted to fissile material. So now I ask you: what relevance, at all, does the distinction between fissile and fertile material have with respect to magic_hamster's claims about the feasibility of waste reprocessing? That commenter claimed reprocessing was not feasible, I responded with dozens of examples of reprocessing being carried out. What does fertile vs. fissile have to do with this? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX
      - Schroedingersat 3y ago
        The relevance is that fertile material is not "partially spent fuel" in any extant fuel cycle. First it does nothing to the fission products (which are the bulk of the radioactive waste by mass). Second turning U238, Pu240, Am241, and transuranics other than Pu239 into usable fuel has never happened without being a minor side-product of neutrons from a fissile source, and using the dregs of Pu239 that is <1% of the spemt fuel and <20% ofntue waste does not reduce the radioactivity of the waste, rather it makes it more dangerous because Pu239 is significantly less harmful than the result of putting MOX in a nuclear reactor, as is regular spent uranium fuel. Pretending otherwise is knowingly disonhest.
        Manuel_D 3y ago
        > The relevance is that fertile material is not "partially spent fuel" in any extant fuel cycle. Nobody was ever talking about fertile material until you brought it up. Let's re-read the relevant part in the root comment shall we? > As pointed out in the video re-processing the fuel gets all of the usable fissile material out. We were always talking about recovering fissile material. "Partially spent fuel" refers to fuel rods that still contain some fissile material. I have no idea where you got the idea that "partially spent material" referred to fertile material, especially when the comment you're referring to explicitly mentioned recovering fissile material.
ianburrell 3y ago
There is nothing chemical that can change the radioactivity of the waste. The remaining waste is more radioactive after reprocessing since the fissile material is less radioactive. What vitrification can do is put waste in safer form that don't have to worry about escaping or polluting. It ends up as safe, very radioactive, glass.

by mikece 3y ago

magic_hamster 3y ago

"Possible" in this context is tricky. Scientifically possible, maybe so. But the effort and time required to build the facilities including treatment of "partially spent fuel" makes it realistically very hard. If memory serves, Germany just powered down a significant portion of their nuclear power plants, and those already had the sunken cost put into them, they were built and operating. We might eventually see a widespread use of nuclear power but climate change will have to kick our ass a little first.

Manuel_D 3y ago
It's not only possible, it has been actually carried out in dozens of facilities across the world: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing As nuclear has been neglected in recent decades it's cheaper to mine uranium than reprocess, but it's by no means an experimental or prototype technology. Climate change will probably spur growth in intermittent sources in the short term, since politicians are usually optimizing for the next election cycle, but eventually peak production times will become saturated and the infeasibility of energy storage in regions within the hydroelectric power will become clear. Effectively all countries that have decarbonized their electricity sector have done so through a mix of hydroelectric power and nuclear power.
- Schroedingersat 3y ago
  Why are nukebros incapable of comprehending the difference between fissile and fertile?
  - Manuel_D 3y ago
    A fissile isotope can readily undergo fission reaction, and a fertile isotope can be converted into a fertile isotope via neutron capture (this is how plutonium is made for nuclear bombs). Neutron capture is not part of the main waste reprocessing method [1], the neutron capture already happened in the reactor. Reprocessing separates the plutonium and other byproducts from the remaining uranium 235 fuel before the latter is re-used, no fertile material is being converted to fissile material. So now I ask you: what relevance, at all, does the distinction between fissile and fertile material have with respect to magic_hamster's claims about the feasibility of waste reprocessing? That commenter claimed reprocessing was not feasible, I responded with dozens of examples of reprocessing being carried out. What does fertile vs. fissile have to do with this? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX
    - Schroedingersat 3y ago
      The relevance is that fertile material is not "partially spent fuel" in any extant fuel cycle. First it does nothing to the fission products (which are the bulk of the radioactive waste by mass). Second turning U238, Pu240, Am241, and transuranics other than Pu239 into usable fuel has never happened without being a minor side-product of neutrons from a fissile source, and using the dregs of Pu239 that is <1% of the spemt fuel and <20% ofntue waste does not reduce the radioactivity of the waste, rather it makes it more dangerous because Pu239 is significantly less harmful than the result of putting MOX in a nuclear reactor, as is regular spent uranium fuel. Pretending otherwise is knowingly disonhest.
      - Manuel_D 3y ago
        > The relevance is that fertile material is not "partially spent fuel" in any extant fuel cycle. Nobody was ever talking about fertile material until you brought it up. Let's re-read the relevant part in the root comment shall we? > As pointed out in the video re-processing the fuel gets all of the usable fissile material out. We were always talking about recovering fissile material. "Partially spent fuel" refers to fuel rods that still contain some fissile material. I have no idea where you got the idea that "partially spent material" referred to fertile material, especially when the comment you're referring to explicitly mentioned recovering fissile material.

ianburrell 3y ago

There is nothing chemical that can change the radioactivity of the waste. The remaining waste is more radioactive after reprocessing since the fissile material is less radioactive. What vitrification can do is put waste in safer form that don't have to worry about escaping or polluting. It ends up as safe, very radioactive, glass.