←back to thread

1041 points mpweiher | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.517s | 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. daemonologist ◴[] No.45225528[source]
Okay, not all of this is accurate. I am not against nuclear (although in recent years it has not been very cost effective), but here are some figures with citations:

- The U.S. generates about 2,000 metric tons of spent fuel each year (from 94 reactors/97 GW) : https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-... . For the whole world it's 7,000 tons (375-400 GW) : https://www.iaea.org/publications/14739/status-and-trends-in...

- Storing it is easy in the short term, but unfortunately any leaks are a big deal and you have to store it basically forever, which is a challenge. If Yucca Mountain were to be restarted it's estimated storing existing and new waste through 2031 there would cost in the neighborhood of $100 billion : (warning: large PDF) https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-603.pdf

- It's possible to recycle the fuel, but currently an order of magnitude more expensive than digging up more : https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/economics-reprocess...

replies(1): >>45225669 #
2. kulahan ◴[] No.45225669[source]
I had no idea I was off by so much with respect to waste, thanks - that's important to know. Still seems like a fairly good trade though - 7000 tons for ~400GW.

You're definitely right about long-term storage being a concern; I think only one long-term storage facility exists right now.

I believe the cost of recycling fuel is largely because it's completely unexplored. I'm sure it'll follow a similar cost reduction path most industries share.