3 ms·
Actinide burning reactors are IMHO a better path forward. There are various proposals and research reactors, some using alternate fuel cycles. The bottom line
by xenadu02 3y ago
Actinide burning reactors are IMHO a better path forward. There are various proposals and research reactors, some using alternate fuel cycles.
The bottom line is the nastiest stuff in spent nuclear fuel are the actinides. They're all naturally radioactive and most of the stuff with long (10,000+ year) half lives that requires long-term storage. You need Yucca Mountain mostly for the actinides. If instead you smash them with fast neutrons you can get them to fission, releasing some energy (though sub-critical) and transmuting them into either much more stable isotopes (little radioactive decay) or really unstable ones (nasty but they decay so fast you only need to hold onto them for a few days/months/years).
The short version is besides reprocessing spent fuel we should be putting the nasty stuff through the sausage grinder again to turn it into much less nasty stuff instead of fighting over where to keep the nasty stuff safe for 100,000 years.