/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11417369
>nuclear waste
It's only used 2-4% of the energy and is discarded because the cladding of the pellets break from radioactive gas. This is why it have such a long half-life. If properly used in only needs to be stored for 300 years like fly-ash.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDqCpfVwdP4

>>>11417419
>They need a fuck tonne of water to operate
Not molten salt reactors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

The Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) would put thorium to better use than poisoning unknowing people with, like Chinese companies do today:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7TwBUxxIC0

>>11325383
Dissolve it in molten salt, add a dash of thorium and extract the rest of the 98% of energy and get useful atoms from it to use in cancer treatment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDqCpfVwdP4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHO1ebNxhVI

>>10882746
We also need to get rid of the "spent" solid nuclear fuel that needs to be stored safe for thousands of years in it's current form. Only a few percent of the energy is used before solid fuel pellets needs to be replaced.
Copenhagen Atomics is developing a waste burner to get additional energy and sought after medical isotopes while reducing the storage time to about 300 years.

Fission is very much still relevant for good reasons!

>>10860441
While they mine rare earth minerals for magnets in turbines and solar cells they discard a lot of thorium that could be but to use in molten salt reactors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyDbq5HRs0o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDqCpfVwdP4

>>10822968
Check the first talk linked in OP, your fear lacks grounds...
When the fuel is dissolved it can be cleaned online and valuable resourced extracted for medical applications.
The garbage that is left only needs to be stored for a few hundred years as opposed to tousands of years with solid fuel pellets. With MSR we can even reburn the radioactive stockpiles!