3 ms·

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 s

by 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.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      They're "old", but the Carlsbad facility that went into operation in 1999 was only the third in the world after two German sites? That still doesn't seem to make sense for the claim that the US sites are "often deep underground" if only only of them is. One out of many is not "often" -- that's "rarely".
      - Alupis 5y ago
        Carlsbad stores waste from production of nuclear weapons, among other things, and is the only facility in the US tasked with storage of so-called "transuranic waste". There are different classifications for nuclear waste, and each warrants different handling as you might imagine. The Yucca Mountain site is 50 meters underground, which is about 164 feet. That's deep enough to not disturb things on the surface if in a geologically stable area. You can see Yucca in on the shallow-side of things for many countries[1]. Perhaps I overspoke when I alleged many are deep in the US. The US is very spread out, and it seems going 200+ meters below the surface wasn't warranted except for the highest classifications of waste. However, in a more densely populated nation, there is no hurdle to building deep repositories, except politics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
  - bpodgursky 5y ago
    I'm quite confident you could sell your waste to Russia, to store in the vast empty tundra, for a couple rubles.
    - jhgb 5y ago
      That would be politically problematic because of our relations with Russia. Also, the tundra is going to thaw soon.
    - vikarti 5y ago
      Except that it's not necessary waste for Russia. At least some of this 'waste' can be used as fuel now or in future. France does have at least some of necessary technologies to do so too. USA/Finland doesn't. See https://habr.com/ru/post/473028/ https://habr.com/ru/post/473028/ (in Russian) and links from it

by jhgb 5y ago

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.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    They're "old", but the Carlsbad facility that went into operation in 1999 was only the third in the world after two German sites? That still doesn't seem to make sense for the claim that the US sites are "often deep underground" if only only of them is. One out of many is not "often" -- that's "rarely".
    - Alupis 5y ago
      Carlsbad stores waste from production of nuclear weapons, among other things, and is the only facility in the US tasked with storage of so-called "transuranic waste". There are different classifications for nuclear waste, and each warrants different handling as you might imagine. The Yucca Mountain site is 50 meters underground, which is about 164 feet. That's deep enough to not disturb things on the surface if in a geologically stable area. You can see Yucca in on the shallow-side of things for many countries[1]. Perhaps I overspoke when I alleged many are deep in the US. The US is very spread out, and it seems going 200+ meters below the surface wasn't warranted except for the highest classifications of waste. However, in a more densely populated nation, there is no hurdle to building deep repositories, except politics. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  I'm quite confident you could sell your waste to Russia, to store in the vast empty tundra, for a couple rubles.
  - jhgb 5y ago
    That would be politically problematic because of our relations with Russia. Also, the tundra is going to thaw soon.
  - vikarti 5y ago
    Except that it's not necessary waste for Russia. At least some of this 'waste' can be used as fuel now or in future. France does have at least some of necessary technologies to do so too. USA/Finland doesn't. See https://habr.com/ru/post/473028/ https://habr.com/ru/post/473028/ (in Russian) and links from it