• BlackLaZoR
    link
    fedilink
    143 months ago

    highly problematic because it’s hazardous and radioactive?

    Thing is, there’s very little of that waste, with much less impact than say, burning coal.

    Also, it’s highly radioactive only when taken fresh out of reactor - this waste is stored in pools, until it decays. What you’re left is weakly radioactive, long term waste that needs to be buried for a long time.

    • bitwolf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      23 months ago

      Adding to this. The waste has been used to fuel subsequent reactions and could be used to produce more power

      • hendrik
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        I mean they seem to be still figuring this out… But isn’t the whole SMR harardous waste after it got decommissioned? That depends a bit on the technology used. But that’d be a huge pile of mildly radioactive steel, plumbing and concrete in addition to the depleted fuel, which is highly radioactive. And as far as I know the re-use to get the rest of the energy out also isn’t solved yet. I mean obviously that should be done. Only taking out parts of the energy and wasting the rest isn’t very efficient. Sadly that seems to be exactly what we’re doing in reality.

    • @Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
      link
      English
      23 months ago

      much less impact than say, burning coal.

      Why compare to coal, not wind & solar + batteries.

      • BlackLaZoR
        link
        fedilink
        13 months ago

        Because wind and solar don’t have the on-demand capacity. Even with batteries, you can’t count on them to deliver power reliably

        • @Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Maybe the AI training could be paused until the sun comes out again.

          Coal and nuclear are not on demand either. Only hydro and gas offer any real flexibility.