7 ms·

Re: nuclear waste Deep core drilling seems to solve all the problems. Burying waste 3 km deep under 2 km of dirt makes it immune to even geological timescale m

Re: nuclear waste Deep core drilling seems to solve all the problems. Burying waste 3 km deep under 2 km of dirt makes it immune to even geological timescale movements. It also solves the problem of security; it's hard to see how a bad actor could drill a 2 km deep hole without being noticed.

pitaj 7y ago
You still have to worry about it leaking into aquifers, though I believe that problem is already solved by encasing the waste in glass.
- mLuby 7y ago
  Are there really aquifers that move water ≥ 1km upward? I thought they were mostly lateral or downward moving.
  - pitaj 7y ago
    Wells can be up to 200m deep. Aquifers are usually level, but the land above them might not be. So burying something 1k deep can leak into an aquifer that is drilled into elsewhere or even a high-table aquifer that drains into surface water downhill.
    - himinlomax 7y ago
      You will obviously notice any aquifer while drilling on the way down. And there may indeed well be water very deep down. But from what I understand, they are not connected with more surface level, and any diffusion of material takes a very long time. Keep in mind the pressure at those depths. Water is obviously lighter than rock, and if it had a way to go up, it would have.
- himinlomax 7y ago
  That's supposedly not a problem at 2km. Keep in mind that the stuff would be packed under 2km of dirt.
yk 7y ago
The problem with drilling is, you have a bore hole connecting your cavern to the surface. And the bad actor potentially does not care about being noticed.
- 0xffff2 7y ago
  >The problem with drilling is, you have a bore hole connecting your cavern to the surface. Is that actually a problem? What kind of events could occur that would make it a problem? >And the bad actor potentially does not care about being noticed. Presumably this hypothetical hole in the ground would be in someplace like the US or Western Europe, under government control, and relatively heavily guarded. In that context, if a bad actor truly doesn't care about being noticed, we probably have bigger problems to worry about, like the collapse of modern civilization.
  - yk 7y ago
    > Is that actually a problem? What kind of events could occur that would make it a problem? Leckage > Presumably this hypothetical hole in the ground would be in someplace like the US or Western Europe, under government control, and relatively heavily guarded. I find your trust in the stability of the US or Western Europe for the next few hundred millennia surprising.
    - himinlomax 7y ago
      You don't need to worry about government stability when you bury stuff under 2km of dirt. Any group with the ability to drill that deep would have the means to do serious damage whether they do indeed drill or not.
- himinlomax 7y ago
  We're talking about covering the stuff with a concrete plug, and then 2 km of dirt. There is no bore hole left. Drilling back in the same spot may be marginally easier than drilling the original hole, but it's still drilling a 2km hole.
xhrpost 7y ago
Aren't there experimental reactors that can "burn"/use the waste of traditional reactors?
- Joof 7y ago
  Yes. I believe there are secondary and tertierary reactors that can handle the waste.
- opwieurposiu 7y ago
  A fast reactor can burn the waste of thermal (traditional) reactor. One design is the TWR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Still needs long term disposal in the end.
    - magduf 7y ago
      It's better than pumping your waste into the atmosphere for everyone to breathe.
    - garmaine 7y ago
      Waaaay less waste is left in the end. Like, small enough to fit in a small room.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
petermcneeley 7y ago
Even better; drill into a subduction plate and have geology take your waste into the planet core.

pitaj 7y ago

You still have to worry about it leaking into aquifers, though I believe that problem is already solved by encasing the waste in glass.

mLuby 7y ago
Are there really aquifers that move water ≥ 1km upward? I thought they were mostly lateral or downward moving.
- pitaj 7y ago
  Wells can be up to 200m deep. Aquifers are usually level, but the land above them might not be. So burying something 1k deep can leak into an aquifer that is drilled into elsewhere or even a high-table aquifer that drains into surface water downhill.
  - himinlomax 7y ago
    You will obviously notice any aquifer while drilling on the way down. And there may indeed well be water very deep down. But from what I understand, they are not connected with more surface level, and any diffusion of material takes a very long time. Keep in mind the pressure at those depths. Water is obviously lighter than rock, and if it had a way to go up, it would have.
himinlomax 7y ago
That's supposedly not a problem at 2km. Keep in mind that the stuff would be packed under 2km of dirt.

yk 7y ago

The problem with drilling is, you have a bore hole connecting your cavern to the surface. And the bad actor potentially does not care about being noticed.

0xffff2 7y ago
>The problem with drilling is, you have a bore hole connecting your cavern to the surface. Is that actually a problem? What kind of events could occur that would make it a problem? >And the bad actor potentially does not care about being noticed. Presumably this hypothetical hole in the ground would be in someplace like the US or Western Europe, under government control, and relatively heavily guarded. In that context, if a bad actor truly doesn't care about being noticed, we probably have bigger problems to worry about, like the collapse of modern civilization.
- yk 7y ago
  > Is that actually a problem? What kind of events could occur that would make it a problem? Leckage > Presumably this hypothetical hole in the ground would be in someplace like the US or Western Europe, under government control, and relatively heavily guarded. I find your trust in the stability of the US or Western Europe for the next few hundred millennia surprising.
  - himinlomax 7y ago
    You don't need to worry about government stability when you bury stuff under 2km of dirt. Any group with the ability to drill that deep would have the means to do serious damage whether they do indeed drill or not.
himinlomax 7y ago
We're talking about covering the stuff with a concrete plug, and then 2 km of dirt. There is no bore hole left. Drilling back in the same spot may be marginally easier than drilling the original hole, but it's still drilling a 2km hole.

xhrpost 7y ago

Aren't there experimental reactors that can "burn"/use the waste of traditional reactors?

Joof 7y ago
Yes. I believe there are secondary and tertierary reactors that can handle the waste.
opwieurposiu 7y ago
A fast reactor can burn the waste of thermal (traditional) reactor. One design is the TWR https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Still needs long term disposal in the end.
  - magduf 7y ago
    It's better than pumping your waste into the atmosphere for everyone to breathe.
  - garmaine 7y ago
    Waaaay less waste is left in the end. Like, small enough to fit in a small room.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

petermcneeley 7y ago

Even better; drill into a subduction plate and have geology take your waste into the planet core.