If we invest in nuclear power, what do we do with the waste?

The chancellor announced new support for nuclear power when he unveiled his budget this week.

Jeremy Hunt said expanding the UK's nuclear capacity was vital to meeting the country's net zero obligations.

But experts are warning that new generation of reactors should not be built until we know what we are doing with the country's existing nuclear waste.

Scientists hoping to bury nuclear waste deep underground have vowed that plans won’t go ahead without local support.

Highly radioactive material equivalent in size to 6,500 double decker buses is currently stored above ground at 20 sites around the UK.

#nuclearpower

[JohnQPublic]

The founder of Green Peace gave the correct answer to this problem and they kicked him out of his own organization.

[malloc]

If only there was this much hand-wringing about fossil fuels.

[declinecomply]

The "waste" is called Plutonium!!! Reusable fuel & essential in (critical mass) bomb making.
The real question is : WHO OWNS IT ???

[paulgibbons]

We bury it in abandoned mines. Same as everyone else. We have literally hundreds of miles of disused mine shafts after our deindustrialisation.

[numodular]

How is it even possible that a major network like Sky, blatantly ignores an opportunity to educate the public on breeder/feeder SMR/MSR tech? Is the fossil fuel industry funding this 'coverage'?

[DanteLovesPizza]

My understanding of nuclear physics is limited, but nuclear doesn't "go away" meaning nuclear waste is just a different element after the half life. Technologically speaking, we're still in the early days of nuclear power, but if there was a new technology that uses the nuclear waste to generate power efficiently, then this problem lessens. Of course, there will be a point where this is not economically feasible, since half life means every change only lasts half the time of the previous, so the efficiency essentially needs to double, or at least be more efficient than the previous to break even, which is difficult since each deterioration means less power, although at the same time, the nuclear waste after each deterioration becomes less potent, meaning the technology to "dispose" of it also becomes less demanding.

I don't know, I'm not a scientist, no understanding of nuclear fusion, but thinking out loud, it's more expensive on one end to reduce the cost at the other end, but also reduces the potency, so there's a bonus? Pretty sure it doesn't work like this, and we don't have the technology to do it, but suppose we did, would this be feasible?

[mximxi]

in the garden of whoever profits from it, but if it's built with cost, expenditure and expansion as the only financial gain then in nuclear bunkers.

[daziceman]

BUILD THORIUM REACTORS THE DONT PRODUCE WAIST AND ITS VERY DIFFICULT TO MAKE BOMBS 20 TIMES MORE ABUNDANT TO

[deejay]

The best thing to do with the waste is to recycle it. That will account for about 95%. The 5% that cannot be recycled is vitrified for storage. France and Japan do this. Germany used to do this until they abandoned nuclear power because the greenies were worried about tsunamis.

[dasReAlvloc]

Dump the stuff in on another planet then don't go back to that planet

[rpixvcs]

Just dump it in somewhere, a poor countries maybe?

[californiadreamin]

I think the waste should be stored below Battersea Power Station .

[Kingtrollface]

Here's an idea, instead of pumping sewage in to the sea and rivers use it to make energy and bio fuel

[willispro]

We’ll put it in the atmosphere like we do with coal/gas… oh wait

[docsideways]

The technology to utilize nuclear waste as fuel for the reactors themselves exists. Spend the money and use it!!

[richardmtl]

I heard they could simply locked it into bricks and bury them deep underground in Canada's Canadian Shield. What's all the hoopla?

[keithnorris]

There are strict definitions of what is and what is not ` waste ` in the industry. However looking at the fate of the total of material, because some does become waste unintentionaly, we see that the industry has done well interms of disposal using the economically challenged humans and some animals. If the industry continues with the proven course there is no need for the industry ( or at least it`s machinery ) to worry about nuclear waste as the poor will always be amoungst us.

[Ronan]

Use a Waste-Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor not only will there be no new waste but we rid 90% of the waste we have.

[malcolm]

Two thirds of the heat from nuclear power stations is dumped in the sea, or rivers in the case of France. This heat should be used in large farm glasshouses to eliminate their use of fossil fuels.

[ssss]

they still have every old nuclear submarine ever built. stacked up since the 1950s. it can only be coal.