• smegforbrains@lemmy.ml
    ·
    7 个月前

    I don't think that's right. The page clearly states "Nuclear reprocessing is the chemical separation of fission products and actinides from spent nuclear fuel."

    • alcoholicorn [comrade/them, doe/deer]
      ·
      7 个月前

      There's both, there was a plant in Savanah Ga that was supposed to process nuclear weapons into fuel, but after they got the weapons, they stalled on building the plant.

      There were other plans to build reprocessing facilities for old fuel in the US (or breeder reactors that can use them as is) that all died off after the fall of the USSR opened up kazakstan, tanking the price of Uranium.

      • Tak@lemmy.ml
        ·
        7 个月前

        I'm glad you followed what I was trying to say. I'm not sure why they're so hard stuck on the spent fuel and not the perfectly viable fuel that is considered waste because it's too enriched.

    • Tak@lemmy.ml
      ·
      7 个月前

      You're still missing the point but I'm not going to try to convince you that plutonium isn't a spent fuel if you believe that.

      • smegforbrains@lemmy.ml
        ·
        edit-2
        7 个月前

        But yes please try to convince me and the readers. That's how discussion work.

        "3% of the mass consists of fission products of 235U and 239Pu (also indirect products in the decay chain); these are considered radioactive waste or may be separated further for various industrial and medical uses."

        Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel