3 ms·

Why? The waste can be reused multiple times. There's no political will for this but that's not a tech limitation

• Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  I agree fuel recovery programs like Frances would reduce the waste pile, but the spent part of the fuel can be more dangerous in many ways. Increasing the number of facilities poses a very real liability, as most peoples current "short term waste disposal" solution is a glorified concrete rusting shed in the back of the generation sites. I have yet to see a real long term solution that hasn't proven to be utter PR BS. I may be wrong, but I've heavily invested in Goat cart futures. =3
  • Moldoteck 2y ago
    How more dangerous? The ideal method would be reprocess 95%, vitrify 5% and store underground, repeat
    • Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      France's reclamation process reduces 17% of natural fuel needed. "How more dangerous?" Generally, the spent pellet structure and hot decay products are problematic to handle as they become a strong gamma emitter. Additionally, there are several risks from decay product dust, non-solid gases, and reactive chemistry. It would be nice if everything could be stabilized into an insoluble oxide ceramic, but this is not how many decay-products behave. I am sure there is someone around that can model the exact probabilistic details on how much and when the most risky products are significantly present. My concern is more with long run outcomes, and if it may still seriously harm some family 157 years from now. =3