Challenges Related to the Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel

First sentence from the article :"Nuclear energy can help stop climate change by generating large amounts of emission-free electricity.", it is only because radiation, which by scientific definition is the most powerfull and dangerouse "emission" in existance but gets magicaly made non existant by a consensous of those who proffit most from the subterfuge,......they always put the biggest lie in the first sentence.....

▲

gregbot 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Reprocessing is an extra cost that isn’t really needed. Globally we have over a hundred years worth of uranium reserves without reprocessing spent fuel.

▲

saulpw 2 days ago | parent [-]

Only a hundred years? At current energy usage rates, even though energy usage increases year-over-year, every year, without fail? And of a fundamentally irreplaceable element that is only forged in supernovae?

How dare you.

	▲	credit_guy 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		It is 100 years of proven reserves. “Proving” a reserve is expensive, mining companies do that in order to secure favorable financing. But when there are 100 of proven reserves, there is little economic incentive to go and prove new reserves. However, if the industry demand increases, because of new build, then initially the proven reserves will suffice only for, say, 80 years, the incentive to prove new reserves appears, and mining companies spend the necessary funds to “prove” new reserves. In reality, the amount of uranium available on this planet is virtually unlimited. There are billions of tons of it in seawater, and it is estimated it would take onle a 4x market price increase for seawater uranium extraction to be economically profitable.