3 ms·
Disagree. "Spent" nuclear fuel isn't spent at all. 90% or more is still there. Many of the other isotopes could be useful as well. If we cannot or will not do
by bradley13 3y ago
Disagree. "Spent" nuclear fuel isn't spent at all. 90% or more is still there. Many of the other isotopes could be useful as well.
If we cannot or will not do the reprocessing, it's a safe bet that some future generation will.
- rapsey 3y agoUnless a better source of energy (or a better battery) is found.
- jabl 3y agoKind of hard to beat nuclear fuel, if energy density is what you want. But sure, in many situations that's not a deciding factor.
- geysersam 3y agoEnergy density is never the deciding factor, except 1. On nuclear submarines, 2. On spacecraft.
- joshstrange 3y agoI think battery vs fuel (oil) begs to differ. Until we can run a 747 on a battery it’s absolutely the deciding factor. I have every hope we are able to do that one day, I’m just saying that energy density is a deciding factor.
- geysersam 3y agoSure, but we're talking about the energy density of uranium. Nuclear powered airplanes are both technically infeasible and an extremely bad idea from a safety perspective.
- refactor_master 3y agoConsidering the whole journey uranium has been through in the last ~100 years, it does seem somewhat shortsighted to declare it “useless” and lock it up forever.
- Ekaros 3y agoOn other hand, compared to alternative of just leaving it in a pool or even dry cask under open sky might not be that much better in medium term.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- doikor 3y agoThat future generation can dig it out if they need it.