this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2024
344 points (85.2% liked)

Memes

45653 readers
1323 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Norgur@fedia.io 45 points 7 months ago (19 children)

I don't think even one of those fast fission reactors is still in operation. Wonder why that is.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago (8 children)

It's not really needed. Waste is a boogeyman, but not really a problem. It takes an incredibly small volume to store the waste, and it can be reduced with reprocessing to run in the exact same reactors.

At some point in the future when there actually is a huge amount of waste causing issues, then it might make sense to build a reactor to use it.

[–] Kindness@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago (6 children)

when there actually is a huge amount of waste

Over 60,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel are stored across Europe (excluding Russia and Slovakia), most of which in France (Table 1). Within the EU, France accounts for 25 percent of the current spent nuclear fuel, followed by Germany (15 percent) and the United Kingdom (14 percent). Spent nuclear fuel is considered high-level waste. Though present in comparably small volumes, it makes up the vast bulk of radioactivity.

~ 2019 https://worldnuclearwastereport.org/

Last "brilliant" plan I heard was dumping it in a hole deep enough we'd never need, nor be able to recover it.

[–] szczuroarturo@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

A quick question . Other than a suprisingly lot of complexity involved in diggin the hole of sufficient size and depth why wouldnt it work ( or is that the reason )?

[–] Kindness@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It would work. Much like every other sweeping of something under the rug, hiding it elsewhere for it to be a problem later always works for the person throwing it away.

After all, why would we ever wish to extract the remaining U~238~ from the spent fuel? We utilised a full 4%, let's call that square and throw the rest down a hole. Perish the thought we'll ever need to dig near this massive radioactive hole. Or that an undiscovered cycle of nature causes it to come back to bite us. Just throw it down there with the rest of the resources we never want to safely explore, and who cares if there's something valuable within it's sphere of radioactivity.

Apologies for the sarcasm. I consider the idea both wasteful and foolish.

I'm a fan of both Thorium and Molten-Salt Reactors.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So a hole with an elevator then?

[–] Kindness@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

If you like hauling hundreds of tons of waste up and down an elevator? Maybe. Who does maintenance every so often at the bottom of the shaft?

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)