tibarun

Ultimately, however, the core problem may be that such new reactors don't eliminate the nuclear waste that has piled up so much as transmute it. Even with a fleet of such fast reactors, nations would nonetheless require an ultimate home for radioactive waste, one reason that a 2010 M.I.T. report on spent nuclear fuel dismissed such fast reactors. Or, as Cochran puts it: "If you want to get rid of milk, don't feed it to cows."

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fast-reactors-to-...

"Do the math! 1.1 additional GT out of 36 GT emitted is only a 3% difference. This 3% value is not a typographical error. Worldwide, all those nukes made only a 3% dent in yearly CO2 production. Put another way, each of the 438 individual nuclear plants contribute less than seven thousandths of one percent to CO2 reduction[18]. That’s hardly enough to justify claims that keeping your old local nuke running is necessary to prevent the sea from rising."

http://www.fairewinds.org/demystify//demystifying-nuclear-po...

Seriously? "Expensive but not impossible"?

It's pure madness that we keep on producing such hazardous waste! And for what purpose? Cleaner energy? Nope! If you take into account the waste management needs, the Uranium mining, the risks involved and the fact that these nuclear plants have to be highly subsidized in order to keep working. Why are we still using such an obviously flawed technology? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/05/170525141544.h...