1. We can and have done it in the past (see EBR-1 where we proved breeding in addition to recycling in 1952)
2. It is extra expensive; uranium is relatively cheap and would have to become ~3x more expensive before recycling was economical
3. Storing existing nuclear waste is relatively easy from a technical point of view because there's so little of it. Finland is moving forwards with their Onkalo repository as case in point.
4. Breeding and recycling is likely necessary if we go world-scale with nuclear and produce more like 50% of primary world energy rather than 4%
5. It's not unreasonable to do once-through now with deep geologic repositories and then switch to billion-year sustainable breeding/recycling if and when we build 3000 new gigawatt scale reactors.
https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/5-fast-facts-about-spent-....
It’s a nothingburger—we can hide radioactive waste for a long time. Experts do not see it as a roadblock [1], and it’s a problem that diminishes with new designs.
We’re not closing the loop on solar panels or wind turbines, by the way. Masswise, that’s a bigger problem. Toxicitywise, it’s in the same class after a few years. (Radioactive waste, unlike the worst chemical pollution, degrades over time. Not just dilutes. But actually degrades. The only reason we’re more scared of uranium than ethylene solvents or benzenes is novelty.)
More directly, the world isn’t replacing nukes with solar. We—mostly the developing world—are replacing them with coal and gas. Stalling on nukes to cure public misconceptions is public action at its worst.
[1] https://news.mit.edu/2023/3-questions-knowing-about-nuclear-...
Nuclear waste is a non-problem, seriously. Yes, the material itself is pretty bad, but compared to the other pollutants, the quantities are tiny and easily manageable.
What is a problem right are the waste products of combustion, CO2 in particular, but also things like coal ash that is radioactive and is not conveniently contained in barrels. Unlike with nuclear power where we have a couple hundred years to deal with potential problems coming from its non-renewable nature, carbon emissions are a problem we need to do something about right now.
> Afterburning of minor actinides is the next step in closing nuclear fuel cycle, which should not only reduce the amount of nuclear waste for final isolation, but also significantly reduce its radioactivity. In the long term, it could avoid the complicated and expensive deep burial of waste