• jerkface
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    “more fuel” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that statement and you could have easily used a much more concerning description without being hyperbolic

    • chaogomu@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This video goes into exactly what isotopes are produced in a nuclear reactor after one cycle (all that’s legally allowed).

      94% of the Uranium put into a reactor comes out after one cycle as waste. All because 1% of that waste is plutonium. Which is an incredibly dense nuclear fuel. That 1% of plutonium, if burned, can outperform the remaining 94% of uranium.

      • jerkface
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As if that were the only thing it could be used for.

        • chaogomu@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The point is, 94.8% of nuclear waste is unburnt uranium, 1% is plutonium, and the rest isn’t that dangerous long term.

          There’s no need to bury waste for hundreds of thousands of years, if you just remove and burn the stuff that is dangerous long term.

          And if burning plutonium for fuel is such a deal breaker, we can switch from the uranium fuel cycle over to the thorium fuel cycle. But that one too faces opposition, because most of the opposition is coming from the fossil fuel industry. They hate nuclear with a passion, because it decouples electricity from oil and natural gas. Which wind and solar currently do not.