←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
cramcgrab[dead post] ◴[] No.45225173[source]
[flagged]
kulahan ◴[] No.45225185[source]
It's not. Not only is it a completely negligible amount (~one 50-gallon barrel per reactor per year), it's easy to store (literally kitty litter) and can be re-enriched (renewable).
replies(4): >>45225270 #>>45225336 #>>45225338 #>>45225528 #
1. chrisweekly ◴[] No.45225270[source]
Citing sources would be helpful.
replies(1): >>45225393 #
2. stahorn ◴[] No.45225393[source]
Here's one. A great read: https://www.amazon.com/Plentiful-Energy-technology-scientifi...

It's available online also: https://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/PlentifulEnergy.pdf

I read it 14 years ago or so, after the Fukushima accident. I don't think the science has changed since then, or since the 90s when this project was shut down. There continue to be so much money in coal, gas, and oil and it's from there I think most of the opposition to nuclear stems from.

Apart from fast reactors, there's also the traditional reactors and storage of spent fuel. Finland's close to opening their process facility: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...