• ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      44
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      Reprocess it, salvage useful isotopes for known uses, keep a few others for research purposes, don’t put it too far away because most of it could be useful in the future.

    • Elwynn@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      Permanent underground storage where it will naturally decay. Are a couple of different methods available from what I understand. And the amount of material that actually needs to be stored is a fraction of what is instead released into the air, water & soil from fossil based fuel. Not to mention toxins like mercury etc.

    • MystikIncarnate@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      We put it back in the ground where we found it in the first place.

      I don’t see how people are A-OK with uranium and other naturally occurring nuclear isotopes beneath their feet, but used fuel rods from a nuclear power plant? No fucking way!

      Your house is full of radon Joe, the nuclear waste in a sealed casket, buried in the side of a mountain nowhere near you isn’t what is going to give you cancer.

      • mlg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I was gonna make a joke about using it for plutonium production, but I’m pretty sure that still requires neutrons from fresh U235 to hit U238 to make U239 which decays into Pu239

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      We have many. Most aren’t in effect yet though, but it also isn’t a serious issue. They’re stored safely in cement caskets, with molten glass and stuff to keep it together and safe, with effectively zero chance to cause an issue. There are permanent ways to store it safely, but we haven’t invested in them yet for many reason. Mostly, dirty energy companies pushing the anti-nuclear message have purposefully hamstrung nuclear from becoming a great solution, and people who think they’re being smart believe them.

      • cloud_herder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        That and they have ways to reuse “spent” nuclear fuel in newer reactors that can use fuel that older reactors have finished using.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Absolutely incorrect. Neutron activation will produce more waste in volume than fission, but without the long lived fission products that are really nasty. We don’t really have a plan yet on HOW we’re going to circulate lithium and recapture tritium and what the waste from that will look like, but we do know it will create a significant amount of waste.

        • RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Thank you. While in the context of fission both the risk and the amount of waste seem to be much lower and waste can probably be managed by fission related protocols, my comment was too grossly wrong, so I just deleted it.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Just put it back in the ground where it came from. Why is this a concern? It was radioactive rocks when we took it out, and it’s radioactive rocks when we put it back in.

      • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        Have you seen spent fuel storage solutions? I’ll happily hold onto a cask. It wouldn’t be any more radioactive than the smoke coming from the coal plant down the street.

        • ghen@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 month ago

          Define problem, because it’s less waste than old solar panels per megawatt. Both of which we just throw away in special places designed specifically for that waste.

          • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 month ago

            Define “less”. By volume? Mass? Ecological impact? If you want to say “per megawatt” then you obviously have numbers, let’s see them.

              • Excrubulent@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 month ago

                Uh, that wasn’t me, please pay attention. Either way, you made a claim - a quantitative claim no less - it’s on you to back it up. Don’t pretend that someone else’s behaviour excuses yours.

                Nuclear waste is uncontroversially a serious problem. If you want to convince anybody of anything else you need to be willing to communicate, and this isn’t it.

          • gnygnygny@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            In EU you recycling is included in the price. It is mandatory and must be done in EU.