News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? by MertsA on Thursday June 09, 2022 @08:13PM (#31688537)
If you vitrified it first honestly it'd probably be totally fine. An arguably better plan is just get serious about reprocessing and work towards cleaner processes than PUREX. Not even necessarily a completely new process, just better controls around handling waste and making sure there's no massive liquid tanks just waiting to leak into the ground like the Hanford site. Most spent fuel is depleted uranium and not exceptionally dangerous to be around. If you can separate out the fission products and transuranics then you could drastically reduce the amount of waste needed to be stored, store it for less time, and potentially recycle some and get some actual use out of what is currently considered waste.

Just dumping fuel pellets into the deep ocean would be a pretty terrible idea though. All the fission products and impurities that build up as the fuel is burned lead to the pellets starting to crack apart. Any cesium or iodine would leach into the water quickly, it would not be a good day for Shamu.

Re:Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? by ncmncm on Thursday June 09, 2022 @09:54PM (#31689110)
Vitrified waste is, despite naive assumptions, porous
Re:Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? by MertsA on Thursday June 09, 2022 @10:20PM (#31689275)
Er, but it's still vitrified and stable as a glassy material that's less prone to leaching fission products into any water right? As far as I understand it, the whole point of vitrifying it is to trap anything and everything aside from Xenon and Tritium into the vitrified end product.
Re:Why are nuclear power construction costs so high? by ncmncm on Friday June 10, 2022 @02:11AM (#31690669)
Momentarily, yes. Longer term, no.