Nuclear waste is radioactive, so why isn't it viable as an energy source?
I mean, its literally emitting energy, right? Thats the problem?
Is there really not a way of, at the very least, passively absorbing this? Even better.. can we not accelerate this release?
Thanks for your time.
fuel reprocessing, france does it and 80% of their energy comes from nuclear power even though they have very little natural resources, and they even export energy, whereas the middle east imports energy despite their vast natural resources
I think this page does a nice job of explaining it: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/tilghman1/
Over a 2000 day period you can generate roughly 0.067% of the energy produced in the reactor at the same time using decay heat. It simply isn't enough to warrant the extra infrastructure, risk and effort. You'd be better off trying to marginally increase your reactor efficiency.
I suppose it's a decent source of heat for external locations but the thing is you can't control it and you're still dealing with a big mess that spits out high energy gamma's. I wouldn't take the risk.
>Nuclear waste is radioactive, so why isn't it viable as an energy source?
But because "nuclear is so dangerous that we can't allow anyone to develop new safe and fuel efficient reactors!" Is stagnating things.