3 ms·
On a positive note: While I have major questions/concerns about distributing poorly secured fast reactors and toxic waste sites all over the planet, if this tec
by abalone 11y ago
On a positive note: While I have major questions/concerns about distributing poorly secured fast reactors and toxic waste sites all over the planet, if this tech really does turn out to be a practical way to reduce the half life of waste...
Why not just turn the waste storage sites into reactor farms?
That would sidestep the problems stemming from decentralization and probably achieve some economies of scale too. Maybe smelt some aluminum with the energy. But even if you essentially threw the energy away, it might be useful as purely a waste cleanup solution.
- jddw 11y agoThey are not poorly secured, and the material is not weaponizable. Not to mention they are not toxic sites, the waste is put into a block of metal that is completely passively cooled so it can't melt. It is buried, and it is secured. And they would generally be deployed in multi unit farms. Plus, no need to throw away the energy, especially if it's cheaper than energy from gas or coal.
- chinathrow 11y agoHow are they secured in theory then?
- jddw 11y agoBuried, sealed, and guarded with armed former spec ops folks.
- chinathrow 11y agoFor each and every client worldwide?
- abalone 11y agoYou're going the secure 1MW reactors with armed special ops ex soldiers? Even if it's a 10MW farm on average, doesn't that explode the cost? And isn't the fact that they'd be "spec ops" caliber guards reflect that there is in fact a security risk with these materials getting into the wrong hands? If so it seems like a committed enemy could attack one of the thousands of these sites successfully. The distributed model seems problematic.