Technically no. That's more of a capitalism issue than an engineering one. Most of the nuclear waste would still be able to be burned and at the end we'd be left with less than one tincan of waste for the entire world...
It just was cheaper to use new fresh uranium than to recycle the existing one into new fuel rods...
Edit: Often it also was only cheaper because of government subsidies too...
It's just called burning nuclear fuel. You're not literally setting them on fire...
English can be a strange language sometimes.
@malwareminigun @agowa338 @Glorrion
They don't. Each "recycling" iteration to get at the unused Uranium and the Plutonium creates quite a bit of toxic and nuclear waste. And even France only does one iteration of this.
To burn it in one go, you would need a breeder reactor. And they are quite a can of worms with regards to safety, cost and plutonium proliferation.
@billiglarper @malwareminigun @Glorrion
Yep you'd need a breeder. But most of the challenges aren't engineering ones but economic and financial. From a purely scientific stance it is totally doable and manageable.
@Glorrion @agowa338 No, you don't need to store until the Uranium decays: the Uranium is already there. Only until the bits with much shorter half lives decay, which is hundreds of years, not thousands.
And this is a much Much MUCH easier problem to solve than the utility scale storage problem renewables need. There are NIMBY issues of course but that's true of every waste disposal facility.
@Natasha_Jay I'm missing the private jets and yachts of the tech bros and oligarchs.
And the smartphones in the hands of the consumers with which they scan the garbage so the AI app may tell them in which bin to sort their waste.
(2nd Edit: Argh. Not German: English, it's „AI“ in English! 😱
Edit: Oorr, autocorrect! KI, not Kid. I explicitly wanted to have the connection between dumb consumers and their use of KI (no: AI!) with its included environmental desaster!)
Systematic problems require systematic solutions.
Admittedly there is some nuance, but it is certainly not a false dichotomy. A coherent and reasonably nuanced account is at https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/13/consumption-choices/
The corporate thumb weighs heavily on the personal responsibility side, and they do, in fact, hope that they can make it a dichotomy, and get us to choose the less effective side.
The cartoon is important and still not well understood.
Thanks, I got it. Recycling is futile. I won't do it anymore.
alt-text: Steam or smoke ?