3 ms·

Then buy the waste in a salt mine or a deep bore hole.

by ch4s3 4y ago

Spooky23 4y ago
Nobody near a candidate big hole seems willing to go for that.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  If you already have a pool and casks, why not drill the hole? Seems like a failure of imagination, and a lack of civic responsibility.
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    Great idea, let’s put it next to your well.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      A deep borehole is super deep compared to a well.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Sorry to reply again. The well on my family farm is a few dozen feet deep, and the bore holes are 5k feet deep and capped at a depth of 3k ft. The farm sit on a massive amount of clay, which is actually great for this kind of thing because clay seals itself under pressure. The proposed French sites are all in clay. I'd be happy to host a site there, or a similar facility near where I actually live.
  - sillystuff 4y ago
    You want geology that is expected to remain stable for eons where the material will be secure from both intentional and unintentional excavation, for eons. And, more immediately, concerns over ground water contamination. Even cities like LA get some of their water supply from wells. And, more rural areas are often served by 100% ground water. Finding sites to safely and permanently dispose of nuclear waste has been hard. Both because a lot of areas are poorly suited, and also nobody wants a permanent nuclear waste dump in their back yard.
    - ch4s3 4y ago
      Obviously not ever single place is suitable but it's being done now in Finland and Slovenia. The holes are 5km deep and the bottom 2km are filled before its capped. This is well below the water table in most places. A DOE analysis found that every single state in the US has suitable sites.
- vkou 4y ago
  Yet, everyone near an oil well/mineral deposit/coal seam is willing to bend over backwards to frack/drill/strip-mine/have an entire generation of people end up with black lung/poison the water of a native population/just outright displace it. Why do you think that is? (The answer, of course, is money. Nobody gets rich storing nuclear waste, but extracting mineral resources is a money printer - especially when you aren't saddled with the long-term consequences.)
  - Spooky23 4y ago
    Not everyone. People were picketing the state capitol in New York for like 3 years during the fracking boom and were successful in stopping it. The folks without mineral rights and with worthless homes with no clean water aren’t so happy either. The company is usually bankrupt so there’s nobody to sue either.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  There's a massive site in Olkiluoto in Finland and more than 30,00 people live there. Slovenia's site is also near people. I'd honestly be fine having one near me if it was built like the site in Finland. There's literally nothing to worry about over a span of more than 10k years, at least. Within a few decades all of the nasty stuff has shed enough neutrons to become less dangerous material.

Then buy the waste in a salt mine or a deep bore hole.

by ch4s3 4y ago

Then buy the waste in a salt mine or a deep bore hole.

Spooky23 4y ago

Nobody near a candidate big hole seems willing to go for that.

ch4s3 4y ago
If you already have a pool and casks, why not drill the hole? Seems like a failure of imagination, and a lack of civic responsibility.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Great idea, let’s put it next to your well.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    A deep borehole is super deep compared to a well.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Sorry to reply again. The well on my family farm is a few dozen feet deep, and the bore holes are 5k feet deep and capped at a depth of 3k ft. The farm sit on a massive amount of clay, which is actually great for this kind of thing because clay seals itself under pressure. The proposed French sites are all in clay. I'd be happy to host a site there, or a similar facility near where I actually live.
- sillystuff 4y ago
  You want geology that is expected to remain stable for eons where the material will be secure from both intentional and unintentional excavation, for eons. And, more immediately, concerns over ground water contamination. Even cities like LA get some of their water supply from wells. And, more rural areas are often served by 100% ground water. Finding sites to safely and permanently dispose of nuclear waste has been hard. Both because a lot of areas are poorly suited, and also nobody wants a permanent nuclear waste dump in their back yard.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    Obviously not ever single place is suitable but it's being done now in Finland and Slovenia. The holes are 5km deep and the bottom 2km are filled before its capped. This is well below the water table in most places. A DOE analysis found that every single state in the US has suitable sites.
vkou 4y ago
Yet, everyone near an oil well/mineral deposit/coal seam is willing to bend over backwards to frack/drill/strip-mine/have an entire generation of people end up with black lung/poison the water of a native population/just outright displace it. Why do you think that is? (The answer, of course, is money. Nobody gets rich storing nuclear waste, but extracting mineral resources is a money printer - especially when you aren't saddled with the long-term consequences.)
- Spooky23 4y ago
  Not everyone. People were picketing the state capitol in New York for like 3 years during the fracking boom and were successful in stopping it. The folks without mineral rights and with worthless homes with no clean water aren’t so happy either. The company is usually bankrupt so there’s nobody to sue either.
ch4s3 4y ago
There's a massive site in Olkiluoto in Finland and more than 30,00 people live there. Slovenia's site is also near people. I'd honestly be fine having one near me if it was built like the site in Finland. There's literally nothing to worry about over a span of more than 10k years, at least. Within a few decades all of the nasty stuff has shed enough neutrons to become less dangerous material.