3 ms·

Countries, sadly, don't get to pick their geology.

by jhgb 5y ago

bpodgursky 5y ago
Yucca mountain is absolutely safe and geologically stable. That was why it was chosen. Don't spread FUD.
- jhgb 5y ago
  Only the US has access to Yucca Mountain; my country doesn't. Not sure how Yucca Mountain is relevant for the all other non-US, non-Finnish countries talked about by GGP.
  - akvadrako 5y ago
    Not every country has every resource; that's why we have global trade. Yet that isn't even relevant since nuclear storage doesn't require special geography – US plants mostly just keep it onsite.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      So will your country allow my country to store our waste in Yucca Mountain, then?
      - Alupis 5y ago
        There's a lot more nuclear waste storage facilities than you might think. Europe has many, for example, and the US has 80+[1][2] in total including Yucca Mountain. Any nation that has operated a nuclear power plant is going to have some sort of storage site. Regardless, it's possible to negotiate this as some sort of trade agreement, sure. Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...
        jhgb 5y ago
        Thank you; I'm fully aware of our intermediate storage sites (we have exactly two of them). But that's not what the top-level comment about the stable storage site was talking about. > Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already It's like you didn't read at all what I wrote! (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28842914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28842914)
        Alupis 5y ago
        Being near a populated area is not a factor for these sites, particularly if you are geologically stable. Look at the map from the US, many sites of varying level are extremely close to major metropolitan areas. They are often deep underground.
        jhgb 5y ago
        It absolutely is a factor for the politics of site decision. I've checked Yucca Mountain; apparently the closest settlement is like 25 kilometers away or so, the next one like 40 kilometers or so. Finding a comparable site in a country 1% the size of US with quadruple the population density and with no sparsely inhabited areas is a Herculean task -- especially if you don't have huge areas appropriated by the military for such purposes. > Look at the map from the US, many sites of varying level are extremely close to major metropolitan areas. They are often deep underground. Wikipedia tells me that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM is currently the only deep underground waste storage site in the US.
        Alupis 5y ago
        Yes, but that is a political problem, not a nuclear problem. > Wikipedia tells me that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM is currently the only deep underground waste storage site in the US. The US storage sites are old (the Carlsbad facility design is from the 70's for example), and the US has vast amounts of land. European sites are often much deeper, and new sites are deeper and deeper, up to 800 meters below the surface.
      - Hamuko 5y ago
        Money talks.
ben_w 5y ago
Fortunately we don’t need many storage places. Nuclear waste is very compact.
- jhgb 5y ago
  Yes, we also need "only one", except in my country it's basically impossible to go a few kilometers from any spot without hitting a settlement (and if you can do that, your point of origin was probably inside a protected national park). That's probably why we still don't have a storage place despite even having reasonable (even if not perfect) geology for it.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    We’d only need one place worldwide if people didn’t object to it crossing borders. Everything nasty from all of them put together is something like one large modern soccer stadium.
    - exdsq 5y ago
      But the logistics of transporting this is crazy even without objections
      - ben_w 5y ago
        Really? Why?
        exdsq 5y ago
        I had this discussion on HN a while ago and looked into it - the costs of transportation are high because of various logistical regulations, there is a high cost upfront cost to set up a disposal site, there is a fairly significant cost for staffing such sites, and these sites will need to be managed for millennia. Here's a good paper on the costs https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/12/2437/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/12/2437/pdf

Countries, sadly, don't get to pick their geology.

by jhgb 5y ago

Countries, sadly, don't get to pick their geology.

bpodgursky 5y ago

Yucca mountain is absolutely safe and geologically stable. That was why it was chosen. Don't spread FUD.

jhgb 5y ago
Only the US has access to Yucca Mountain; my country doesn't. Not sure how Yucca Mountain is relevant for the all other non-US, non-Finnish countries talked about by GGP.
- akvadrako 5y ago
  Not every country has every resource; that's why we have global trade. Yet that isn't even relevant since nuclear storage doesn't require special geography – US plants mostly just keep it onsite.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    So will your country allow my country to store our waste in Yucca Mountain, then?
    - Alupis 5y ago
      There's a lot more nuclear waste storage facilities than you might think. Europe has many, for example, and the US has 80+[1][2] in total including Yucca Mountain. Any nation that has operated a nuclear power plant is going to have some sort of storage site. Regardless, it's possible to negotiate this as some sort of trade agreement, sure. Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:Nuclear_waste_locations_USA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_waste#/media/File:... [2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-shows-expanse-of-u-s-nuclear-waste-sites/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2019/05/31/new-map-...
      - jhgb 5y ago
        Thank you; I'm fully aware of our intermediate storage sites (we have exactly two of them). But that's not what the top-level comment about the stable storage site was talking about. > Your country could also build their own if they didn't have one already It's like you didn't read at all what I wrote! (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28842914 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28842914)
        Alupis 5y ago
        Being near a populated area is not a factor for these sites, particularly if you are geologically stable. Look at the map from the US, many sites of varying level are extremely close to major metropolitan areas. They are often deep underground.
        jhgb 5y ago
        It absolutely is a factor for the politics of site decision. I've checked Yucca Mountain; apparently the closest settlement is like 25 kilometers away or so, the next one like 40 kilometers or so. Finding a comparable site in a country 1% the size of US with quadruple the population density and with no sparsely inhabited areas is a Herculean task -- especially if you don't have huge areas appropriated by the military for such purposes. > Look at the map from the US, many sites of varying level are extremely close to major metropolitan areas. They are often deep underground. Wikipedia tells me that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM is currently the only deep underground waste storage site in the US.
        Alupis 5y ago
        Yes, but that is a political problem, not a nuclear problem. > Wikipedia tells me that the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, NM is currently the only deep underground waste storage site in the US. The US storage sites are old (the Carlsbad facility design is from the 70's for example), and the US has vast amounts of land. European sites are often much deeper, and new sites are deeper and deeper, up to 800 meters below the surface.
    - Hamuko 5y ago
      Money talks.

ben_w 5y ago

Fortunately we don’t need many storage places. Nuclear waste is very compact.

jhgb 5y ago
Yes, we also need "only one", except in my country it's basically impossible to go a few kilometers from any spot without hitting a settlement (and if you can do that, your point of origin was probably inside a protected national park). That's probably why we still don't have a storage place despite even having reasonable (even if not perfect) geology for it.
- ben_w 5y ago
  We’d only need one place worldwide if people didn’t object to it crossing borders. Everything nasty from all of them put together is something like one large modern soccer stadium.
  - exdsq 5y ago
    But the logistics of transporting this is crazy even without objections
    - ben_w 5y ago
      Really? Why?
      - exdsq 5y ago
        I had this discussion on HN a while ago and looked into it - the costs of transportation are high because of various logistical regulations, there is a high cost upfront cost to set up a disposal site, there is a fairly significant cost for staffing such sites, and these sites will need to be managed for millennia. Here's a good paper on the costs https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/12/2437/pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/12/2437/pdf