• ryathal@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Weight is a way to make the problem sound worse than it is, because nuclear waste is so incredibly dense. It’s not enough to be a big deal yet. Dumping it deep into the ocean is an option, but it’s only going to happen to waste that doesn’t have potential uses first.

    • Kindness@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      nuclear waste is so incredibly dense

      Yes and no. Most current fuels are Uranium or Plutonium. Both between 19 and 20 g/cm3. For reference, liquid water is approximately 1 g/cm3. Unspent fuel is a similar weight to gold.

      “Spent” U238 is usually around 96% U238. If we consider the remainder a rounding error and assume all 60 tonnes is 60 million kg of U238. That will give us a very rough estimate of 3,000 m3.

      Also worthy of noting are other wastes that comes from mining and refining.

      There is much waste already. The “spent” waste is too radioactive to safely re-refine until later.