this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
97 points (96.2% liked)

Europe

8484 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe 🇪🇺

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, 🇩🇪 ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I am very well aware of the state of nuclear waste in France, and it's not 96% recycled. This is absolutely laughable.

[–] sparkle@lemm.ee 10 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I should say up to 90-96%. It depends on the methods and the type of fuel you use. Currently widely used nuclear technology is more like 30-50% recyclable. That number is able to be increased by using more recyclable fuel technology, which is available.

French nuclear waste in total is 0.0018 km³ (three olympic swimming pools) after 8 decades of using nuclear and primarily using nuclear for 4 decades, so I'm not so sure how you imply that the "state of nuclear waste" is bad. Even with the "inefficient" ways of using/recycling nuclear, there's not a lot of waste produced in the first place.

Only ~10% of French waste is actually long-lived too, meaning after a few decades to 3 centuries, 90% of it will no longer have abnormal radioactivity. Meaning the radioactiveness of the waste just goes away on its own after a moderately short period of time and it basically just turns into a big rock.

[–] crispy_kilt@feddit.de -1 points 4 months ago

I should say up to 90-96%.

Right, and I am up to 90% made of Mars dust.

[–] drolex@sopuli.xyz -5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

0.0018 km3 is an enormous volume for something so dangerous. And that doesn't taken into account the waste created during extraction and transformation of nuclear fuel. Map of nuclear waste storage here https://reporterre.net/CARTE-EXCLUSIVE-Les-dechets-radioactifs-s-entassent-partout-en-France

And recycling is an abusive terminology for nuclear waste, since reusing waste creates again nuclear waste, waiting for "valorisation ultérieure" i.e. stored.

See source in Frenc https://inventaire.andra.fr/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/fr/andra_essentiels_2021_in_web.pdf