this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2024
402 points (87.5% liked)

Share Funny Videos, Images, Memes, Quotes and more

2359 readers
20 users here now

#funny

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

We currently have no real way to recycle spent fuel. Only a small percentage of nuclear waste can be recycled and it's very expensive to do so, that's why there are only two countries currently recycling fuel: France and Russia. Sellafield in the UK has been closed in the Fukushima aftermath. In France only 10% of nuclear fuel is recycled material using the purex process, which can also produce weapons-grade plutonium and therefore also raises different concerns.

https://www.goodenergycollective.org/policy/faq-recycling-nuclear-waste

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Nuclear weapons are not spent fuel.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

No but during nuclear waste recycling weapons-grade material can be produced, that's why it's a nuclear proliferation concern.

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

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

These are literal nuclear weapons and waste from refining to make them. It literally sits in a parking lot in Tennessee

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't think that's right. The page clearly states "Nuclear reprocessing is the chemical separation of fission products and actinides from spent nuclear fuel."

[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

There's both, there was a plant in Savanah Ga that was supposed to process nuclear weapons into fuel, but after they got the weapons, they stalled on building the plant.

There were other plans to build reprocessing facilities for old fuel in the US (or breeder reactors that can use them as is) that all died off after the fall of the USSR opened up kazakstan, tanking the price of Uranium.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

I'm glad you followed what I was trying to say. I'm not sure why they're so hard stuck on the spent fuel and not the perfectly viable fuel that is considered waste because it's too enriched.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're still missing the point but I'm not going to try to convince you that plutonium isn't a spent fuel if you believe that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

But yes please try to convince me and the readers. That's how discussion work.

"3% of the mass consists of fission products of 235U and 239Pu (also indirect products in the decay chain); these are considered radioactive waste or may be separated further for various industrial and medical uses."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel