Depends on the tech used.
Fast breeders fell out of favour in the 1950s, as they could be used to weaponise fissionable materials. However they are *much* more effective at burning fissiles than regular reactors - in conjunction with reprocessing, it's possible to break down a good 70% of fissiles rather than the 10% or so conventional reactors manage.

This also results in the waste coming out the other end being a whole lot less reactive than spent fuel from a traditional reactor.

Also, they can burn Thorium - which is a lot more abundant than uranium.

(I grew up with the spectres of three mile island and chernobyl, but currently believe nuclear fission is the best current stop-gap we have).

YS
(_(_(_(_(_(_(_(_(_ =o.o=, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:33, 1 reply)

I don't know about you, but I feel a little uneasy hearing "nuclear" and "stop-gap" in the same sentence. Makes me imagine reactors held together with duct tape.
(Musuko, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 18:38, closed)