|
|
|
|
|
|
by cloakandswagger
3668 days ago
|
|
|
This is something I've always wondered about, especially when confronted by environmentalist camps that oppose nuclear power. Nuclear fuel recycling seems totally viable, and I imagine nuclear "waste" could be reprocessed and used for as long as there are fissionable products left in it. At which point it would pose minimal danger and save us a boatload on 10,000 year warning signs. |
|
|
People are scared by the phrase 'breeder reactor'; which is poor marketing, calling it a 'waste reduction reactor' is slightly longer, but also more accurately describes what it does and sounds a LOT better.
I think it may have been a result of Fukushima, but I gained an interest in the topic and spent a few tens of hours researching. A proper waste reduction reactor produces three categories of radioactive material.
* Stuff that is so crazy hot it'll cool off in a 'short' period of time.
* Stuff that is good for use in reactors (a subset of the above).
* Stuff that will take a LONG time to decay; which means that it is active, but very very slowly emitting.