the long term storage of the waste is dirty as hell -
It's not!
France manages to recycle a lot of it's fuel(not sure if all), 90% gets back to reactor, 10% is transformed in solid state via vitrification for long term storage, where only first ~300 yrs are really dangerous bc of the decay speed of these 10%
Why others don't do this? Fk knows, fossils lobby I guess+ some other 'reasons' that are not that important.
There are similar reprocessing plants in Japan and (maybe) China and one more county
US doesn’t do it because the highly-radioactive byproducts generated by the reactors were at one point the desired end-product. But even so, it’s a miniscule amount — such that things like “having an off-site storage facility” are problems that have been put off for decades (and probably can be for a few more).
In the US the Carter administration stopped spent fuel recycling due to it's fears of nuclear proliferation. Didn't make sense to me at the time and still doesn't.
Comments
the long term storage of the waste is dirty as hell - It's not! France manages to recycle a lot of it's fuel(not sure if all), 90% gets back to reactor, 10% is transformed in solid state via vitrification for long term storage, where only first ~300 yrs are really dangerous bc of the decay speed of these 10% Why others don't do this? Fk knows, fossils lobby I guess+ some other 'reasons' that are not that important. There are similar reprocessing plants in Japan and (maybe) China and one more county
US doesn’t do it because the highly-radioactive byproducts generated by the reactors were at one point the desired end-product. But even so, it’s a miniscule amount — such that things like “having an off-site storage facility” are problems that have been put off for decades (and probably can be for a few more).
In the US the Carter administration stopped spent fuel recycling due to it's fears of nuclear proliferation. Didn't make sense to me at the time and still doesn't.