$8.3 B: A Big Price Tag For a DOE Dice Roll

[PamW]

7. Reading comprehension again.

As we have seen, statements that 90 or 95 percent of the material in spent fuel can be used are completely invalid without breeder reactors.
===================================

Go back and read my post again. I didn't say that we could "use" the 96% of the spent fuel that is U-238. I said we could bury it!!!

You've refuted nothing with the above claim. Many claim there is this huge problem with the volume of nuclear waste. However, 96% of it is U-238 that is no more radioactive than when we dug it out of the ground. We could just put it back, and it would be the same as if we had never dug it up.

Read what I wrote:

Right now; no where. However, it doesn't have to be that way. The USA could do what other nations that have nuclear power are doing; reprocess and recycle. Spent fuel is 96% U-238. That U-238 is no more radioactive than the day it was dug out of the ground. Therefore, if we separate it from the rest of the waste, then we could put it right back into the ground where we got it from - no harm, no foul. That reduces the amount of "waste" by a factor of 25.

Now where did I say that I was advocating "using" the 96% that is U-238?

We could; if we had fast reactors; we could use all that U-238.

However, that wasn't the point I was making. In the absence of fast reactors to actually use the U-238; we can bury it.

So we'll have to classify the above post as "non-responsive" and a "non-sequitur".

PamW