/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15798433
>How can anyone still support nuclear power after all the radioactive waste it produces
picrel. What's your alternative and how much waste does it produce? (hint: no matter what it is, it's more than this)
>Japan just flushed trillions of kilolitres of nuclear waste into the Pacific,
>and that's only controversial because China made a stink
Anon, wtf. It's water with Tritium (a natural isotope of Hydrogen) at levels below background. Like you said, it's only an issue because China made a big stink. Literally no other reason.
>The future is solar, not nuclear
Oh you're just retarded.

>>15406299
>can someone explain why nuclear waste is a problem?
Because of several decades of propaganda pushed by people who didn't know better. It has engineering challenges but they're not insurmountable. The bigger challenges are political (e.g. re-opening Yucca, restarting IFR/EBR programs).
Here's a vid that goes into more details: https://youtu.be/UA5sxV5b5b4

>>14671387
>factors of 2 to 30.
And? What's the issue? It's solid waste that's vitrified. Nuclear waste is such a nothingburger.

>>14577704
Nuclear waste is such a nothingburger that I can't believe it's still an "issue". First, because so little of it is produced that no one takes it seriously. Second, we have the technology today to reduce the time it needs to be stored from 500,000 years to 300-500 years. Well within the lifetime of even man-made structures & cultures. Third, nuclear waste isn't all that bad. The radioactive elements are largely fissile or fertile and represent unspent nuclear fuel that can be used in a reactor.

Here's a good intro (the whole channel but this will go over reprocessing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UA5sxV5b5b4

>>14569747
It's literally too small an amount to be a problem. Pic very much related.
Not to mention that most plants don't use up all of the fissile material - 96% or so of the U235 is still remaining.