>>27718135>>27718187>>27718336>>27718135>>27718135>>27718135I work in nuclear power. The 200 years estimate isn't even close.
There are two ways to look at the sustainability of nuclear power. The way we do it, and the way we should have been doing it.
The way we do it:
>mine and process uranium into fuel>put fuel into reactor>when approximately 1% of fuel is "burned", take fuel out of reactor>put 'spent' fuel in pool or dry casks>panic about what to do with massive volume of 'spent' fuelThe way we SHOULD do it
>mine and process uranium into fuel>put fuel into reactor>when approximately 1% of fuel is burned, take fuel out of reactor and reprocess fuel>when the fuel you out in to run the reactor is 'spent', put your reprocessed fuel in>reprocess the fuel you just took out>wash>rinse>repeatThe 200 years theory is based on the first plan, with some assumptions thrown in. With the second plan, the number goes up to something like "about 200 years after we colonize other planets and the like". It also has the neat side effect of reducing the volume of nuclear waste each plant produces by a pretty massive amount.
People got scared of reprocessing during the cold war because of concerns about nuclear weapon proliferation. Thankfully, the same people got scared of nuclear power in general by TMI and The China Syndrome. Thankfully, they'll be dead soon, or at least too old to matter.
Also, the US nuclear industry is inherently completely different. Chernobyl is physically impossible here, TMI is literally the worst case scenario. And look at the results of that. A partial meltdown. 0 deaths. 0 cancer incidences. 0 injuries. On the whole, a meltdown at a US plant isn't going to cause anything more than a very expensive cleanup. Which the utility is on the hook for, anyways.
