• BlackLaZoR
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago
    link
    fedilink

    highly problematic because it’s hazardous and radioactive?

    Thing is, there’s very little of that waste, with much less impact than say, burning coal.

    Also, it’s highly radioactive only when taken fresh out of reactor - this waste is stored in pools, until it decays. What you’re left is weakly radioactive, long term waste that needs to be buried for a long time.

    • Knock_Knock_Lemmy_InEnglish
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      2 hours ago
      link
      fedilink

      much less impact than say, burning coal.

      Why compare to coal, not wind & solar + batteries.

    • bitwolfEnglish
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      0
      ·
      4 hours ago
      link
      fedilink

      Adding to this. The waste has been used to fuel subsequent reactions and could be used to produce more power

      • hendrik
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        2 hours ago
        link
        fedilink

        I mean they seem to be still figuring this out But isn’t the whole SMR harardous waste after it got decommissioned? That depends a bit on the technology used. But that’d be a huge pile of mildly radioactive steel, plumbing and concrete in addition to the depleted fuel, which is highly radioactive. And as far as I know the re-use to get the rest of the energy out also isn’t solved yet. I mean obviously that should be done. Only taking out parts of the energy and wasting the rest isn’t very efficient.