Where are the actual experiences with it? The physics also show that such a reactor is possible. If numbers on paper are good enough for burying, they are good enough for that reactor to actually get rid of the waste.
Posted article indicates that even if the experiment performs to expectations, there will still be waste to be disposed of. They hope to convert most of the nasty, longer-lived radionucleides into something useful, but most is not all. Plus, part of their selling point is conversion into medical radionucleide sources, and to be honest, the market there isn’t all that big (like, “a single reactor in Canada supplied a high percentage of these sources for many years” not-that-big). It can probably absorb the output of this reactor, but ramp the idea up into a general solution for all nuclear waste everywhere, and we’ll likely end up with more medical and industrial radionucleide sources than we know what to do with.
(There’s also the question of what kinds of waste could be reprocessed. Only enriched waste from light-water reactors? What about waste from heavy-water reactors, which tends to be bulkier but considerably less radioactive?)
Posted article says otherwise. Clearly you didn’t care to read it.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/experimental
Experimental - Noun “The subject of an experiment”
Given that there are zero experiences with burying nuclear waste for a million years, your easy solution is very much at best hypothetical.
Eh, the maths have shown that burying will work fine.
Your maths:
Where are the actual experiences with it? The physics also show that such a reactor is possible. If numbers on paper are good enough for burying, they are good enough for that reactor to actually get rid of the waste.
Look, we are both trying to solve the waste issue, why are you treating me like an enemy?
Posted article indicates that even if the experiment performs to expectations, there will still be waste to be disposed of. They hope to convert most of the nasty, longer-lived radionucleides into something useful, but most is not all. Plus, part of their selling point is conversion into medical radionucleide sources, and to be honest, the market there isn’t all that big (like, “a single reactor in Canada supplied a high percentage of these sources for many years” not-that-big). It can probably absorb the output of this reactor, but ramp the idea up into a general solution for all nuclear waste everywhere, and we’ll likely end up with more medical and industrial radionucleide sources than we know what to do with.
(There’s also the question of what kinds of waste could be reprocessed. Only enriched waste from light-water reactors? What about waste from heavy-water reactors, which tends to be bulkier but considerably less radioactive?)
The less if left, the better. Certainly better than burying everything and hoping for the best.
Well, yes, less is better, but the point is, we’re still going to need the holes in the ground. Just not as many or as large.