●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system
Forgot your password?
Close
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
bycrazyvortex ( 9942666 ) writes:
Excellent findings!
However, I'm worried that the economies that drive innovation in nuclear power will favor convenience and short term cost over long term sustainability.
bybeachmike ( 724754 ) writes:
You resort on one of the usual enviro-wackjob phrases: "long term sustainability." There's nothing UNSUSTAINBABLE about radioactive waste. One of the best solutions we had for radioactive waste in North America was Yucca Mountain Repository, which corrupt liberal Democrat Senator Harry Reid shut down after the federal government spent nearly $20 billion developing. Many types of radioactive was can also be recycled while being used as fuel. Many other repositories, underground or inside mountains, can be de
bydrewsup ( 990717 ) writes:
One of the best ideas for disposal is reprocessing and reuse.
byAmiMoJo ( 196126 ) writes:
Problem with reuse is that all the attempts to do so thus far have ended in expensive failures at well below commercial scale. Plus there are proliferation issues.
bye3m4n ( 947977 ) writes:
They arent talking spent fuel. Thats once every 20 years. They are talking the cloth glove you used to lubricate a valve in the reactor compartment as part of its every 6mo maintenance schedule. More reactors means more people doing maintenance and thus more protective clothing being disposed of as POTENTIALLY radioactive. The amount of thick yellow polly bags tagged as RAM I have seen in my life, none of which is actually radioactive, could fill an airplane hangar.
byAmiMoJo ( 196126 ) writes:
Problem is it costs a lot of money to properly categorize potentially radioactive waste, so it's not worth doing. Just throw it all in a nuclear landfill.
Also don't forget that the entire modular reactor becomes nuclear waste at the end of its design life. Nobody is going to take one apart to recycle it, it will just get stored along with everything else.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bye3m4n ( 947977 ) writes:
They spent quiet a lot of money on the disposal system itâ(TM)s finally going to process all that nerve gas that theyâ(TM)ve been storing for 70 years. The thermal temperatures obliterate everything. We could use something like that to greatly reduce the volume of actual particulate thats radioactive. Once it is all dust we can use centrifuges to separate the various material based on its atomic mass. We already do it to refund uranium. This would be much less specific if I were doing is trying to
bytragedy ( 27079 ) writes:
You want to run, what? Tens of thousands of tons of material through gas centrifuges every year? That's not sounding very practical.
●threshold.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
It is much harder to find a job than to keep one.
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...