Andrew, my very first Fox News column, a couple of years ago, was on this very subject.

Put nuclear waste on the Moon? Didn't you watch Space: 1999?!

:)

We (the US) decided to NOT process spent fuel as a matter of law in the late 70s.

A reactor consumes fuel and in the process it produces poisions. Poisions absorb neutrons and reduce the power generating capacity of the reactor. A poisoned reactor may still have significant quantities of fuel that is suitable for use. Reprocessing the fuel can recover useful fuel and reduce waste. We currently through away the good fuel and the poisons together. This is wasteful.

The French, Germans, and Japanese all reprocess their fuel. The technology exists. The problem is, like so many problems in engineering, a political problem.

Later,
Jason from Seattle

Yup. Processed high-level waste is no more radioactive than the original ore within 600 years. It should be handled with care, certainly, but the risk is small if done properly.
Space launch adds a great deal of risk, just because it could drop on somebody's head.

Compare that to the megatons of solid waste produced by coal power plants, and the rest of the stuff put into the air by all fossil power plants. Add in mining and transportation and nuclear is just a lot cleaner than fossil, even ignoring CO2 production. If I could, I would move us to passively safe nuclear power plants and rational fuel reprocessing. The total waste produced would be small - I'd stick it in a cavern and guard the entrance. In 50 years or so when we learned how to properly use it, I'd bring it back out.

free poker Have a nice day! :)