> So why has nuclear waste become a thing that's not mentioned anymore?
- It still is the number 1 talking point.
- It is a solved problem (you put it in a hole).
- The "problem" is vastly overstated. We're talking about 60 years of waste can sit on a football field 1.5m high. That's tiny. Bringing up (generically) waste on a technical forum is often associated with not knowing much about the subject.
- Economics is a better talking point because it is actually debatable (cases to both sides).
Yup, thorium-based nuclear power does not generate much nuclear waste at all, for example, and nuclear waste can be recycled, called "nuclear recycling"[1].
The thorium fuel cycle produces about the same amount of waste as the equivalent U-Pu cycle. Both are breeding cycles requiring reprocessing. There is nothing magical in Th that gets rid of the waste.
The Th cycle can't really be compared to the once-through enriched uranium cycle, as Th doesn't contain any fissile isotope by itself. It requires breeding and reprocessing.
- It still is the number 1 talking point.
- It is a solved problem (you put it in a hole).
- The "problem" is vastly overstated. We're talking about 60 years of waste can sit on a football field 1.5m high. That's tiny. Bringing up (generically) waste on a technical forum is often associated with not knowing much about the subject.
- Economics is a better talking point because it is actually debatable (cases to both sides).