Ah, I’ve just mixed up things a bit. I was thinking of fast-neutron reactors. Waste from these is less cumbersome, and the existing waste can be partially reused with them.
But they still do produce radiactive waste, which has to be taken care of. Its true that the amount and toxicity of long lived waste is reduced. But we still need to take care of the rest. And as there is no long-term storage facilty to safely deposit the waste, I do think the risk of storing nuclear waste on the surface is too high.
I’m no expert on this topic, but reading this, it also sounds like the currently running Fast-Neutron Reactors do not recycle their fuel at this point in time.
Fast-neutron reactors can potentially reduce the radiotoxicity of nuclear waste. Each commercial scale reactor would have an annual waste output of a little more than a ton of fission products, plus trace amounts of transuranics if the most highly radioactive components could be recycled.
And as there is no long-term storage facilty to safely deposit the waste,
Yes, we don’t have things until we purchase or make or in this case build them.
but reading this, it also sounds like the currently running Fast-Neutron Reactors do not recycle their fuel at this point in time.
I’m not an expert either, what I meant is that waste from dirtier kinds can partially be used as fuel for these, and I think I’ve heard they already do that.
But this is exactly the current problem in Germany: It is currently not feasible to create a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste. This is a extremely heated discussion with a lot of emtion going around. I do think we desperatley need such a facilty and we should have a process based on scientific evidence to find such a site. This is a work in progress by the German “Federal Office for the safety of Nuclear Waste Management”. But as long as we do not have such a site I think it’s iresponsible to produce more nuclear waste.
My second point is that this seems not be done currently as the vocabulary used is “could be used” and “has the potential”.
But as long as we do not have such a site I think it’s iresponsible to produce mre nucler waste.
That nuclear waste is being sent to countries having such facilities ; they also have some recycling capacity\expertise. Also introducing blockers where you don’t need them seems a bad idea for me always.
My second point is that this seems not be done currently as the vocabulary used is “could be used” and “has the potential”.
I’m not a specialist, at all. I’ve heard it is sometimes done to some extent. That’s all I can give you.
That nuclear waste is being sent to countries having such facilities ; they also have some recycling capacity\expertise. Also introducing blockers where you don’t need them seems a bad idea for me always.
This is currently very hard in Germany since almost every transport of Castor containers which are filled with high level nuclear waste, namely spent fuel is accompanied by substantial protest. This is why the nuclear waste is stored in intermediate sotrage facilities on the surface in close proximity to the actual waste producers.
Also transporting nuclear waste has it’s own risks. For example one such transport derailed in France:
“On February 4, 1997, a train carrying spent fuel from the Emsland nuclear power plant derailed in the French border town of Apach .”
Luckily there was no nuclear spillage, but I still find this extremely unsettling. Hard to imagine what happens when something like the Eschede train disaster happens with a nuclear transport.
Also the Castor containers currently in use had originally a lifetime of 40 years. A substantial amount of these containers will reach this age soon. So it was decided to prolonge this life time because of political considerations. There is currently ongoing research if the Castors are able to hold the spent fuels safely until a long term storage facility is available in Germany, the earliest date for which is suppoed to be in the 2050s.
Ah, I’ve just mixed up things a bit. I was thinking of fast-neutron reactors. Waste from these is less cumbersome, and the existing waste can be partially reused with them.
But they still do produce radiactive waste, which has to be taken care of. Its true that the amount and toxicity of long lived waste is reduced. But we still need to take care of the rest. And as there is no long-term storage facilty to safely deposit the waste, I do think the risk of storing nuclear waste on the surface is too high.
I’m no expert on this topic, but reading this, it also sounds like the currently running Fast-Neutron Reactors do not recycle their fuel at this point in time.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor
Yes, we don’t have things until we purchase or make or in this case build them.
I’m not an expert either, what I meant is that waste from dirtier kinds can partially be used as fuel for these, and I think I’ve heard they already do that.
But this is exactly the current problem in Germany: It is currently not feasible to create a long-term storage facility for nuclear waste. This is a extremely heated discussion with a lot of emtion going around. I do think we desperatley need such a facilty and we should have a process based on scientific evidence to find such a site. This is a work in progress by the German “Federal Office for the safety of Nuclear Waste Management”. But as long as we do not have such a site I think it’s iresponsible to produce more nuclear waste.
My second point is that this seems not be done currently as the vocabulary used is “could be used” and “has the potential”.
That nuclear waste is being sent to countries having such facilities ; they also have some recycling capacity\expertise. Also introducing blockers where you don’t need them seems a bad idea for me always.
I’m not a specialist, at all. I’ve heard it is sometimes done to some extent. That’s all I can give you.
Also transporting nuclear waste has it’s own risks. For example one such transport derailed in France: “On February 4, 1997, a train carrying spent fuel from the Emsland nuclear power plant derailed in the French border town of Apach .” Luckily there was no nuclear spillage, but I still find this extremely unsettling. Hard to imagine what happens when something like the Eschede train disaster happens with a nuclear transport. Also the Castor containers currently in use had originally a lifetime of 40 years. A substantial amount of these containers will reach this age soon. So it was decided to prolonge this life time because of political considerations. There is currently ongoing research if the Castors are able to hold the spent fuels safely until a long term storage facility is available in Germany, the earliest date for which is suppoed to be in the 2050s.
Sources:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atommülltransporte_in_Deutschland (Google Translate: https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Atommülltransporte_in_Deutschland?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=de&_x_tr_pto=wapp)
https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/atommuell-zwischenlager-sicherheit-castor-100.html (Google translate: https://www-deutschlandfunk-de.translate.goog/atommuell-zwischenlager-sicherheit-castor-100.html?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eschede_train_disaster
Well, these are administrative questions.
I don’t think this should be based on administrative considerations at all. This should be based on our best scientific knowledge of the topic.
Which for energy production involves, of course, accounting for such administrative problems.