From a technical point of view, nuclear waste is a solved problem. The issue is political.

Ibidem for the fuel: yes, you can depends on wild countries; You can also depends on Australia, Canada and India, which seems like not-so-bad countries (in my opinion);

▲

natmaka 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

> From a technical point of view, nuclear waste is a solved problem

When it comes to nuclear waste repositories real experts official publish: "Internationally, it is understood that there is no reliable scientific basis for predicting the process or likelihood of inadvertent human intrusion."

Source: https://international.andra.fr/sites/international/files/201...

▲

JackSlateur 2 days ago | parent [-]

I have no idea how this information relates to the parent post;

▲

natmaka 2 days ago | parent [-]

A problem with nuclear waste is that living being (especially human beings) must not be exposed to it.

▲

JackSlateur 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes

Like magma, sulfuric acid, mercurium, lead, basically thousands of stuff

You eat it, you die

▲

baobabKoodaa 2 days ago | parent [-]

You're being obtuse on purpose and that's not nice. Could you please just respond to the argument in a good faith manner rather than pretend you don't understand the argument?

▲

JackSlateur 2 days ago | parent [-]

Yes

As I said earlier, I do not understand the relation between the answer and its parent

Yes, toxic waste are toxic, this is not the issue (as far as I know)

The issue is the long life of nuclear waste, which is a solved problem due to fast breeder reactor (half life ~30ky, which is nothing compared to what light water reactors produce); Also, the quantity of waste is drastically reduces;

Why are not mass producing them: political issue;

▲

natmaka a day ago | parent [-]

> solved problem due to fast breeder reactor

For this we need an industrial model of breeder reactor. Please name it. There is none.

Many nations (US, France, Germany, Japan...) engulfed huge amounts of money on this quest, during decades.

TLDR: this works on lab reactors cajoled by scientists. It doesn't work industrially.

Russia has (by far) the most advanced potentially pertinent reactors ("BN"), and they work so well that this nation pauses on this architecture (sodium) and is back to the lab (300MWe) with another architecture (lead) named "BREST".

> the quantity of waste is drastically reduces

Therefore it would not solve the problem (we would have to put this waste somewhere then pray that nobody ever mingles with it).

▲

JackSlateur a day ago | parent [-]

> Russia has (by far) the most advanced potentially pertinent reactors

Wikipedia disagrees

> we would have to put this waste somewhere then pray that nobody ever mingles with it).

Preventing people from killing themselves is not an issue per-se.

▲

natmaka 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Wikipedia disagrees

? Please quote and source, or name a model of industrial breeder reactor ready-to-be-deployed.

((nuclear waste))

> Preventing people from killing themselves is not an issue per-se.

"Wikipedia disagrees": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warnin...

▲

mastermage a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Ethics?

	▲	JackSlateur 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Knives can kill: should we destroy them ? Height can kill: should we make the earth even ? Rock can kill: should we ban rocks ? Water can kill: should we destroy all waters ? (yes, this is argumentum ad absurdum; Effort is made to prevent access to the nuclear waste, like all toxic materials)

▲

zekrioca 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Solved problem? Have you ever waited 10000 years to see if the waste really decomposes and the area where it was stored is safe for kids to play?

	▲	JackSlateur 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Ergo FBR, no 10000y+ nuclear waste, problem solved (there is still very low amount of waste that have a long half-life, really not a big deal)