Originally posted by Robtard
Why isn't this done then? I suspect cost?Why are the materials considered spent after less than 1% of usage?
What ilikecomics said with a splash of special interest lobbying thrown in.
For decades 1 company had an effective monopoly on providing fuel assemblies to almost all traditional reactors. Westinghouse.
Ironically, Fukushima may have been a double edged sword. While it has contributed to the public doubts about the safety of nuclear technology. Something that fossil fuel companies have been extremely quick to pounce on. It's also weakened the iron grip of traditional reactor technology. Reactors are being shut down around the world because of Fukushima and plummeting demand for fuel nearly bankrupted westinghouse and its parent company Toshiba. This has had the secondary effect of opening up a gap in the market to alternate nuclear technologies. The problem is those companies don't have the resources to effectively lobby their potential. That's why development is so slow. The propaganda machine being brought to bear against them from fossil fuel companies is extremely difficult to overcome. They try and succeed in convincing the public and politicians that all nuclear technology should be lumped together and are all equally dangerous.
There's a lot of factors at play though. Fossil fuel companies aren't quick to tell people that burning coal has released vastly more radioactive pollution into the atmosphere than all the nuclear accidents combined simply by virtue of the fact that coal has radioactive nucleides in it.
Thorium isn't new nuclear technology. It was developed at the same time as Uranium and Plutonium reactor technologies in the 1950s. They were favoured over thorium and thus funded by government because of 1 fundamental difference. They could create isotopes for use in nuclear weapons where as thorium technology could not.