Open Menu
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
lotide
AllLocalCommunitiesAbout
Login

Nuclear waste is reusable. Why aren’t we doing it?

⁨36⁩ ⁨likes⁩

Submitted ⁨⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago⁩ by ⁨quoll@lemmy.sdf.org⁩ to ⁨videos@lemmy.world⁩

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiAsmUjSmdI

source

Comments

Sort:hotnewtop
  • Nomecks@lemmy.ca ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Because of nuclear non-proloferation treaties. You can’t run a “recycling” program without also being able to make plutonium for bombs.

    source
    • cordlesslamp@lemmy.today ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Just let the government do it then. All nuclear waste should/must be handled and recycled by the state.

      source
    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      but it’s not true that “You can’t run a “recycling” program without also being able to make plutonium for bombs.” You need far more enrichment for weapons grade plutonium than you do for commercial fuel plutonium.

      In fact, the more we use plutonium for fuel, the less nuclear waste there will be available to potentially be recycled into weapons grade plutonium in the future.

      source
  • givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    We do…

    The US military sells our “spent” fuel to France who refines it and uses it.

    Why do people always want to learn about nuclear energy from YouTube videos made by teenagers with no clue how nuclear power works?

    source
    • quoll@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      …err the video is 90% a tour of the ORANO La Hague spent fuel recycling facility… by adults.

      source
    • Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Oh really?

      For its part, the US Energy Department, which owns almost 50 tons of excess Cold War plutonium, contracted with the French government-owned nuclear-fuel cycle company, Areva (now Orano), in 2008 to build a MOX fuel fabrication plant. But the United States switched to a “dilute and dispose” policy for its excess plutonium in 2017 after the estimated cost of the MOX plant grew from $2.7 billion to $17 billion.

      Source

      source
      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        That does have most of the same words, so I could see why a search engine thought it was relevant…

        But did you read it? Even just the part you quoted?

        Like, that’s talking about cold war plutonium…

        That’s not what used military reactor fuel is…

        source
        • -> View More Comments
    • acosmichippo@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      how much though? I was under the impression that the vast majority of US nuclear fuel is “once through” and the waste goes into long term storage.

      source
  • Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Because the technology does not exist and would be prohibitively expensive to develop even if we got it to work at all.

    source
  • julysfire@lemmy.world ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Because money.

    source
    • quoll@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      …and plutonium

      source
  • Fizz@lemmy.nz ⁨8⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Its not taking up much space, we don’t really need to reuse it at the moment.

    source