Talk:Spent nuclear fuel

Merge?

Radioactive waste contains pertinent text in several sections. Simesa 09:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that they should be merged. Spent fuel is only one type of radioactive waste and there is enough information for another article. Also, the radioactive waste article is already fairly long and a merge would make it significantly longer, unless a lot of material is trimmed. -- Kjkolb 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. JPD (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Used nuclear fuel → Spent nuclear fuel – "Spent nuclear fuel" and "spent fuel" are far more commonly used that "used nuclear fuel". While I know from experience that this is this case, Google results are better evidence. "Used nuclear fuel" gets 68,700 results, while "spent nuclear fuel" gets 1,330,000 results and "spent fuel" gets 2,050,000, which is 19 times and 30 times more results, respectively. -- Kjkolb 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support. I have never heard the term "used" in this capacity; makes me think of a cigar-chomping guy in a loud plaid sportscoat yelling, "Only 20 gigabeqs on her! Owned by a little old lady who only powered her submarine on Sundays!" --SigPig 07:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. --Polaron | Talk 14:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. --My old username 23:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nomination. --NPswimdude500 21:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

how long does spent fuel take for its half life????

SNF activity images use Curie instead of Curie/mass

show Curie via time, but the activity of SNF depends on how much SNF. It could be Curie per kg, g, ton, pound, mol, fuel pellet, fuel rod, SNF pool, castor container, ...

I'll change 'Curie' in the image to 'Activity/unit of SNF'. If someone knows the actual unit, please put it there. Darsie42 (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

well - the curves look similar to these, where the activity is Curies per fuel rod assembly, but the absolute values do not line up https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0410/ML041000555.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.23.18 (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Who says this

Article currently reads on part The term "fuel" is slightly confusing, as it implies a combustion of some type, which does not occur in a nuclear power plant.

Confusing to whom? Certainly combustion does not occur. But this seems to me to be WP:OR, or controversial at best. Andrewa (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)