• AbsolutelyNotABot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s a little bit complicated and I don’t want to write a wall of text but: Waste fuel can be recycled, if your reactor has a breeding ratio higher than 1 then it has net positive production of fissile materials. Potentially all uranium and thorium of the planet could be used.

      The argument being, if you consider the word “renewable” in the strictest sense, no energy source is renewable, entropy can only increases: solar depends by the sun burning a finire amount of hydrogen, geothermy depends by earth inner heat which is a finire amount ecc.ecc. The common usage of renewable is along the line of “immensely big proportional to human consumption” and in this sense there’s a strong argument to consider nuclear renewable.

      • evranch@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Unfortunately most reactors are not breeders and we are trying our best to lock the waste away forever which ruins any chance of recovery when we finally do migrate to breeder cycles. I like to compare our current reactors to burning just the bark off of logs and then tossing the rest in a smoldering heap, with 95-99% of the energy still retained in the waste.

        Breeder reactors would indeed extend the long term viability of nuclear fission immensely, we should be using them exclusively.

        • nicman24@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          you do not need a breeder to recycle most of it. also that 95% is still there for future us to use when we are able to.