3 ms·

Not every nuclear waste producing country has so much space. Actually most don't.

gambiting 7y ago
I just don't get the problem, like at all. Dig a 5-6km deep shaft(we already have the technology for that depth, no issues), put the waste at the bottom. Keep drilling shafts until all waste is burried. That's far below the depth of any water sources, and unless you bury it near a tectonic fault, it's not making its way back through geological processes for eons. Like, can someone explain to me why we're not already doing that?
- Krasnol 7y ago
  I can't explain you that but just the fact that nobody is doing it might give you the idea that this is probably something you shouldn't do.
  - gambiting 7y ago
    As others have pointed out, most issues are political, not technical. There are already places which would be perfect(deep mine shafts surrounded by salt deposits, so they are literally impenetrable as salt is self-sealing) but the countries/states they are in object to keeping the waste as some sort of ideological issue. What I want to know is whether there is a technical issue with what I am suggesting.
    - Krasnol 7y ago
      You just literally proposed to dig a 5-6m deep hole and assumed that would be enough...not even salt mines are enough. See Germany where there is suddenly groundwater seeking into a salt mine full of radioactive waste. A salt mine that was considered safe once. Now they are looking for years now to find a new safe spot and Germany stopped producing new waste. Still they have those problems. Tax payers are paying for this search. They'll also pay for the retrieval and they are paying for pumping out of the water. There are many issues there obviously. This is not some easy thing you try to dig in there. It'll be there for a very long time.
      - magicalhippo 7y ago
        To be fair, he said 5-6 kilometers, and the Asse II mine is less than 800m deep.
        Krasnol 7y ago
        Yeah, when I saw that, I couldn't edit anymore. My argument was also not aimed at the depth but at the unreflected "just dig a hole and hide it there" idea which reminds me of the dumping of nuclear waste into the sea.
        gambiting 7y ago
        Well, the clear difference is that stuff dumped into the sea will make it to the surface sooner or later. Containers will eventually leak and the dangerous materials will get into water, which then will carry it all over the world. Waste dumped into a 6km deep borehole is not coming out ever. I've made another comment above with a link to the wiki article about project deep borehole - where exactly this was researched and found viable for long-term storage of radioactive material. But was of course stopped by......public protests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal
        Krasnol 7y ago
        But at least we know were it was or came from and that pretty soon. Hiding the stuff in a deep hole and probably be forgotten before it becomes safe is just irresponsible. I would even prefer that you keep it in one of the dumps on the surface in case we do come up with an economical way to reprocess or "zapp" it in 10, 50, 100 years. At least we know where it is. I won't even touch geological issues that may come up. A few decades ago we wouldn't know that we would be able to cause earthquakes because we're shooting chemicals into the ground. Who knows what will be in 100 years or in 200?
        gambiting 7y ago
- dmurray 7y ago
  The deepest mine in the world is 4km deep. There are only a dozen or so more than 2km deep. Going down 5-6km may be possible, but definitely not with "no issues". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines
  - gambiting 7y ago
    You don't need to drill tunnels for people to walk in - just a borehole wide enough to fit a cylinder filled with nuclear waste. In fact, this very idea was already researched and test holes drilled - but of course was cancelled due to public opposition, even though we could get rid of our nuclear waste almost overnight using this method. Typical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal
    - magicalhippo 7y ago
      Just running the numbers here. As per your Wikipedia article, current technology limits the borehole to 50 cm. That gets us 500 to 1000 m^3 worth of storage per borehole, assuming the lower 1km to 2km is used for storage. From this[1] page, as far as I understand, on a global scale the current amount of nuclear waste in need of such storage is 482000 m^3. So roughly 500-1000 boreholes to store the current waste inventory. Anyone got any ideas on how much it costs to drill a 5-6km 50cm hole? [1]: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx#ECSArticleLink5 http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
      - Krasnol 7y ago
        It costs something around 1000€ for a 6m well. Without the paperwork. But this is your usually drilling equipment for those depths.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]

I just don't get the problem, like at all. Dig a 5-6km deep shaft(we already have the technology for that depth, no issues), put the waste at the bottom. Keep drilling shafts until all waste is burried. That's far below the depth of any water sources, and unless you bury it near a tectonic fault, it's not making its way back through geological processes for eons. Like, can someone explain to me why we're not already doing that?

Krasnol 7y ago
I can't explain you that but just the fact that nobody is doing it might give you the idea that this is probably something you shouldn't do.
- gambiting 7y ago
  As others have pointed out, most issues are political, not technical. There are already places which would be perfect(deep mine shafts surrounded by salt deposits, so they are literally impenetrable as salt is self-sealing) but the countries/states they are in object to keeping the waste as some sort of ideological issue. What I want to know is whether there is a technical issue with what I am suggesting.
  - Krasnol 7y ago
    You just literally proposed to dig a 5-6m deep hole and assumed that would be enough...not even salt mines are enough. See Germany where there is suddenly groundwater seeking into a salt mine full of radioactive waste. A salt mine that was considered safe once. Now they are looking for years now to find a new safe spot and Germany stopped producing new waste. Still they have those problems. Tax payers are paying for this search. They'll also pay for the retrieval and they are paying for pumping out of the water. There are many issues there obviously. This is not some easy thing you try to dig in there. It'll be there for a very long time.
    - magicalhippo 7y ago
      To be fair, he said 5-6 kilometers, and the Asse II mine is less than 800m deep.
      - Krasnol 7y ago
        Yeah, when I saw that, I couldn't edit anymore. My argument was also not aimed at the depth but at the unreflected "just dig a hole and hide it there" idea which reminds me of the dumping of nuclear waste into the sea.
        gambiting 7y ago
        Well, the clear difference is that stuff dumped into the sea will make it to the surface sooner or later. Containers will eventually leak and the dangerous materials will get into water, which then will carry it all over the world. Waste dumped into a 6km deep borehole is not coming out ever. I've made another comment above with a link to the wiki article about project deep borehole - where exactly this was researched and found viable for long-term storage of radioactive material. But was of course stopped by......public protests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal
        Krasnol 7y ago
        But at least we know were it was or came from and that pretty soon. Hiding the stuff in a deep hole and probably be forgotten before it becomes safe is just irresponsible. I would even prefer that you keep it in one of the dumps on the surface in case we do come up with an economical way to reprocess or "zapp" it in 10, 50, 100 years. At least we know where it is. I won't even touch geological issues that may come up. A few decades ago we wouldn't know that we would be able to cause earthquakes because we're shooting chemicals into the ground. Who knows what will be in 100 years or in 200?
        gambiting 7y ago
dmurray 7y ago
The deepest mine in the world is 4km deep. There are only a dozen or so more than 2km deep. Going down 5-6km may be possible, but definitely not with "no issues". https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deepest_mines
- gambiting 7y ago
  You don't need to drill tunnels for people to walk in - just a borehole wide enough to fit a cylinder filled with nuclear waste. In fact, this very idea was already researched and test holes drilled - but of course was cancelled due to public opposition, even though we could get rid of our nuclear waste almost overnight using this method. Typical. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_borehole_disposal
  - magicalhippo 7y ago
    Just running the numbers here. As per your Wikipedia article, current technology limits the borehole to 50 cm. That gets us 500 to 1000 m^3 worth of storage per borehole, assuming the lower 1km to 2km is used for storage. From this[1] page, as far as I understand, on a global scale the current amount of nuclear waste in need of such storage is 482000 m^3. So roughly 500-1000 boreholes to store the current waste inventory. Anyone got any ideas on how much it costs to drill a 5-6km 50cm hole? [1]: http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-waste-management.aspx#ECSArticleLink5 http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fue...
    - Krasnol 7y ago
      It costs something around 1000€ for a 6m well. Without the paperwork. But this is your usually drilling equipment for those depths.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]