Maybe we should do more research on turning these hazardous products into safer, more stable substances. I'm no nuclear engineer, but it looks like the primary method is bombarding the isotopes with neutrons. How much energy does that take compared to the energy generated by the reactor?

[–] BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

It's a good goal, but last I heard we were very far off from that being economical compared to just throwing it in a hole forever (which is honestly pretty expensive).

[–] Crankenstein@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

If the problem is economic in nature then the solution is to change the system of economics until it fits material reality, not wait until material reality can fit into our arbitrary system of economics. I'm so sick of "economically viable" being the limiting factor to societal progress.

[–] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 3 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

bombarding the isotopes with neutrons

There’s a word for that: a nuclear reactor!

You may be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

A reactor whose main purpose is to destroy actinides rather than increasing fissile fuel-stocks is sometimes known as a burner reactor. Both breeding and burning depend on good neutron economy, and many designs can do either. Breeding designs surround the core by a breeding blanket of fertile material. Waste burners surround the core with non-fertile wastes to be destroyed. Some designs add neutron reflectors or absorbers.

Fusion power, if ever realized, also has a high neutron flux at a high neutron temperature, though it faces the same issue of “in the short term, it's more expensive than just storing waste in a hole”