●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
Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
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This discussion has been archived.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.
byjd( 1658 ) writes:
1. Nuclear recycling is a proven technology, the question is whether you can recycle enough material to make it worthwhile, and whether the material obtained will be useful. (Plutonium is very useful for power generators in space, so obtaining this isn't a problem.)
2. Nuclear waste that generates heat is incredibly useful. Generating electricity from heat to generate heat involves two conversions and the process is wasteful. If you could simply use the heat from the waste to heat up water, which holds a lot
bycareysub ( 976506 ) writes:
Fast reactors can burn nuclear waste, so 3+ and 4 don't generate much waste you actually need to store anywhere.
You apparently believe that fast reactors destroy radioactive fission products. Fast reactor fanbois invariably seem to think this. They don't. All they do is burn-up the plutonium that would otherwise be in the spent fuel waste.
And the reprocessing to get the plutonium out produces more total waste volume that must be disposed of than the original spent fuel itself.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byMrKaos ( 858439 ) writes:
Fast reactors can burn nuclear waste, so 3+ and 4 don't generate much waste you actually need to store anywhere.
You apparently believe that fast reactors destroy radioactive fission products.
There is a class of fast reactor that can achieve this called a burner reactor. They burn transuranics into fissile ash. Much more radioactive, but also a shorter half life (600 years for the first half-life). They are an anti-proliferation type reactor because they burn DU and pu-239 to sr-90 (IIRC).
Also because they burn DU (U-238) to fissile ash they would effectively end uranium mining for the foreseeable as there is 700,000 tons of the stuff currently being used as munitions.
To me this is the o
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...