• felbane@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 hours ago

    To add to this, spent fuel is over 90% recyclable. If the US were to instate a comprehensive recycling program like France has done, the spent fuel cache could be reduced to negligible amounts.

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      17 hours ago

      Nuclear might be better than coal or fossil fuels, but it’s still dirty and expensive.

      Spent fuel recycling costs a fortune. Only France is currently invested in it.

      “In 1996 it estimated that reprocessing of existing used nuclear fuel could cost more than $100 billion.”

      Most waste is stored in underground salt mines and requires special transportation, handling, and storage. That storage includes providing space between the spent rods to prevent interaction (you can’t just stack them compactly together). So while you may read that we produce half a swimming pool worth of waste, it takes a lot more space to store the spent rods than a “grocery store”. We produce about 2000 metric tons of spent rods per year. In addition, there’s all the other waste created when you run a nuclear plant — that includes garments and other materials. That adds up to “160,000 cubic feet (4,530 cubic meters) of radioactive material from its nuclear power plants annually”.

      Disposing of spent rod storage casks costs $1 million per cask.

      And then there’s the waste produced when decommissioning plants, or when plants go awry.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-waste-lethal-trash-or-renewable-energy-source/

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

      There’s a great video DW tv did on reprocessing and still having to store spent nuclear waste here:

      https://youtu.be/hiAsmUjSmdI