• assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    There is one thing that new nuclear reactor designs can provide that there is no good alternative for, and that’s consuming existing nuclear fuel. We can use breeder tractors to convert our existing waste into usable fuel for newer reactor types (I want to say Thorium but I’m not positive).

    Our best outlook for the future is for us to build at least as much of these are necessary to clean up our nuclear waste.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      There is one thing that new nuclear reactor designs can provide that there is no good alternative for, and that’s consuming existing nuclear fuel. We can use breeder tractors to convert our existing waste into usable fuel for newer reactor types (I want to say Thorium but I’m not positive).

      Building reactors just to reprocess fuel would be a really bad way to solve that problem. If we are requiring reprocessing, there are other countries that run these that we could just ship our fuel to.

      Breeder reactors bring some serious security problems

      One of the really great things about civilian nuclear power in the USA is that the fuel or waste can never be built into a nuclear bomb. Our reactors run on Uranium-238. This is the most common isotope of uranium and its plenty fissile to reach criticality for power generation. Nuclear bombs use Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239.

      The way a Breeder reactor can reprocess fuel is by turning “spent” Uranium-238 into, you guessed it, Plutonium-239. Plutonium-239 can be used to generate electricity in reactors too. So now you’ve got civilian power plants that are housing and handling weapons grade nuclear material. The security of the facility, supply chain, workers and everything suddenly has to go through the roof. All of those things increase the total costs to the resulting electricity. With nuclear already being more expensive than other cleaner and dirtier alternatives, running Breeder reactors makes that nuclear power yet more expensive again!

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Those are certainly difficulties that we’ll need to address. The plutonium especially. I think we could design ways however to keep it secure. It would certainly need to be carefully designed though.

        • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          We certainly could. We do it already today in the USA with our nuclear weapons (which use Plutonium). Its all possible, its just expensive. So much so that it makes an expensive power source (nuclear) even more expensive. Why would we do this when solar costs 5 times less than regular civilian nuclear power?

          • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            There’s no magic bullet to our problems. Solar has issues with storage and varies day to day with the weather. I’ve got no issue making it a large supply of our energy, but we’ll need generation sources for cloudy days. We can’t presume the battery storage will be full every time we need it and it’s cloudy out.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              Who’s suggesting there’s a magic bullet? Certainly not me.

              I’ve got no issue making it a large supply of our energy, but we’ll need generation sources for cloudy days. We can’t presume the battery storage will be full every time we need it and it’s cloudy out.

              My argument is that nuclear isn’t it.