this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2024
396 points (86.9% liked)

Science Memes

11047 readers
2885 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 hours ago (3 children)

Yes, but energy density doesn't matter for most applications and the waste it produces is highly problematic.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

If something is Nuclear enough it can generate heat, its just the reactors make use of an actual reaction that nuclear waste can't do anymore. Yever watch the Martian, he has a generator that's fuel is lead covered beads of radioactive material, it doesn't generate as much as reactors but it's still a usable amount.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

If something is Nuclear enough it can generate heat

That's an extreme oversimplification. RTGs don't use nuclear waste. Spent reactor fuel still emits a large amount of gamma and neutron radiation, but not with enough intensity to be useful in a reactor. The amount of shielding required makes any kind of non-terrestrial application impossible.

The most common RTG fuel is plutonium (^238^Pu, usually as PuO~2~), which emits mostly alpha and beta particles, and can be used with minimal shielding. It can't be produced by reprocessing spent reactor fuel. In 2024, only Russia is manufacturing it. Polonium (^210^Po) is also an excellent fuel with a very high energy density, but it has a prohibitively short half-life of just over a hundred days. It also has to be manufactured and can't be extracted.

^90^Sr (strontium) can be extracted from nuclear fuel, and was used by early Soviet RTGs, but only terrestrially because the gamma emission requires heavy shielding. Strontium is also a very reactive alkaline metal. It isn't used as RTG fuel today.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

85% of used fuel rods can be recycled to new fuel rods. And there's military uses for depleted uranium too. So, essentially every bit of the waste can be recycled. Can't say the same for fossil fuels.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

"85% of used fuel rods can be recycled" is like "We can totally capture nearly all the carbon from burning fossil fuels and then remove the rest from the atmosphere by other means".

In theory it's correct. In reality it's bullshit that will never happen because it's completely uneconomical and it's just used as an excuse to not use the affordable technology we already have available and keep burning fossil fuels.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Capturing all the extra carbon from the atmosphere is not as expensive as it sounds like. It can easily be done by a few rich countries in very few decades once we stop adding more there every day.

Recycling nuclear waste is one of those problems that should be easy but nobody knows what the easy way looks like. It's impossible to tell if some breakthrough will make it viable tomorrow or if people will have to work for 200 years to get to it. But yeah, currently it's best described as "impossible".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago

Capturing all the extra carbon from the atmosphere is not as expensive as it sounds like. It can easily be done by a few rich countries in very few decades once we stop adding more there every day.

What?

For starters, carbon capture takes an insane amount of power. And to follow up: we couldn't even build the facilities is "a few decades" even if we free power and infinite money.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, you're not making any sense. How is the recyclability of nuclear fuel rods an excuse to keep burning fossil fuels? That's a massive leap in logic that demands an explanation.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

They’re saying that plausible uses don’t necessarily translate to real world use, in practice. I have no stake in this, just translating

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 hours ago

While I understand where they're coming from, it should be noted that they're likely basing their experience with recyclability on plastic recycling which is totally a shit show. The big difference comes in when you realize that plastic is cheap as shit whereas uranium fuel rods are not.