I think the “shouldn’t castigate ourselves for the Vietnam War” tied in with his pardon of all draft dodgers.
The rest, yeah, not the best. He also banned the reprocessing of nuclear waste into more fuel. Massively driving up the cost of nuclear power while also creating the problem of nuclear waste.
“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
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.
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.
I think the “shouldn’t castigate ourselves for the Vietnam War” tied in with his pardon of all draft dodgers.
The rest, yeah, not the best. He also banned the reprocessing of nuclear waste into more fuel. Massively driving up the cost of nuclear power while also creating the problem of nuclear waste.
“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
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.
As if that were the only thing it could be used for.
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.