• rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    No, you can’t keep using the shitty, cracking,

    They can be safely renovated, just informing you.

    deadly waste producing nuclear plants of the past,

    Don’t think people are stupid. That deadly waste naturally becomes less deadly over time. There are procedures for nuclear waste processing and burial sites and when those can be reused. The cycle takes many years, but that’d be the same with keeping forests, for example.

    • smegforbrains@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      I don’t think that’s true. We will have to store our nuclear waste safely for geological timescales: possibly millions of years. Currently only two working reprocessing plants exist in France and Russia and they can be employed to produce weapons-grade plutonium. In France currently only 10% is recycled.

      Sources: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2019/11/26/the-staggering-timescales-of-nuclear-waste-disposal/?sh=58d3d09f29cf

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        10 months ago

        Ah, I’ve just mixed up things a bit. I was thinking of fast-neutron reactors. Waste from these is less cumbersome, and the existing waste can be partially reused with them.

        • smegforbrains@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          But they still do produce radiactive waste, which has to be taken care of. Its true that the amount toxicity and long lived waste is reduced. But we still need to take care of the rest. And as there is no long-term storage facilty to safely deposit the waste, I do think the risk of storing nuclear waste on the surface is too high.

          I’m no expert on this topic, but reading this, it also sounds like the currently running Fast-Neutron Reactors do not recycle their fuel at this point in time.

          Fast-neutron reactors can potentially reduce the radiotoxicity of nuclear waste. Each commercial scale reactor would have an annual waste output of a little more than a ton of fission products, plus trace amounts of transuranics if the most highly radioactive components could be recycled.

          Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            And as there is no long-term storage facilty to safely deposit the waste,

            Yes, we don’t have things until we purchase or make or in this case build them.

            but reading this, it also sounds like the currently running Fast-Neutron Reactors do not recycle their fuel at this point in time.

            I’m not an expert either, what I meant is that waste from dirtier kinds can partially be used as fuel for these, and I think I’ve heard they already do that.

            • smegforbrains@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              10 months ago

              But this is exactly the current problem in Germany: It is currently not feasible to create a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste. This is a extremely heated discussion with a lot of emtion going around. I do think we desperatley need such a facilty and we should have a process based on scientific evidence to find such a site. This is a work in progress by the German “Federal Office for the safety of Nuclear Waste Management”. But as long as we do not have such a site I think it’s iresponsible to produce mre nucler waste.

              My second point is that this seems not be done currently as the vocabulary used is “could be used” and “has the potential”.