4 ms·
I genuinely believe the people working on this problem are looking at it the wrong way. Instead of trying to make the waste repository into something highly vis
by BitwiseFool 4y ago
I genuinely believe the people working on this problem are looking at it the wrong way. Instead of trying to make the waste repository into something highly visible, or mystical, they should instead choose a remote and inhospitable location where attempting to access the repository is economically nonviable for any future civilization.
Assuming civilization collapses or regress to pre-industrial levels where the concept of radiation is lost, any future group trying to extract this mythical energy source would have to first discover the location of something buried so deep underground, and then have to develop the logistics to try and access it with manpower. If the repository is placed in the middle of a desert, the challenge of providing water to the workers would be substantial. If they placed it in Antarctica, simply getting there and keeping the workers from freezing to death would be so monumentally expensive that it would bankrupt any civilization attempting to do so. Even if industrialized capacity does return, it would still be economically monumental to try and get to the waste repository. There is also a decent chance that a future civilization with said capacity would rediscover the concept and dangers of radiation.
When I talk about expense, I also like to highlight this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Menkaure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_of_Menkaure
Here is a project to dismantle a pyramid that was canceled because of how expensive it was and because of how little of a return on investment the endeavor appeared to be.
- thatguy0900 4y agoWe have to keep current day expenses in mind as well. It's true that noone in the future would be dragging waste back from Antarctica, but noone now wants to drag it there either. Same with shipping it across a continent or ocean into a desert. And if we're talking 10k years into a post apocalyptic future, your deserts may no longer be a desert.
- BitwiseFool 4y agoIt's a fair point, but if the thought exercise is that we must do as much as we can to prevent a future catastrophe, I feel like the cost of an antarctic vault would be manageable compared to the cost of some military projects, moon missions, or even megaprojects in American cities.
- tra3 4y agoYou may not be giving them enough credit. Last ice age was roughly 10,000 years ago. At these time scales it's difficult to predict what's going to happen... Of course lets not forget the costs either. Someone has to pay for this. Seems to be highly irresponsible to leave poisonous garbage around no matter what.
- aeternum 4y agoThe 'poisonous garbage' was deep in the earth previously, and there are naturally occurring pockets of gas that are arguably even more dangerous. Given how distributed knowledge now is, it's pretty ridiculous to think that nuclear will be completely forgotten.
- Nannooskeeska 4y agoTom Scott has a great video[0] about the Onkalo spent nuclear fuel repository in Finland[1], in which he talks about one of the reasons that they decided on the particular area - why would anyone dig there? Skip to 4:29 in the video for the relevant info. [0]: https://youtu.be/aoy_WJ3mE50 https://youtu.be/aoy_WJ3mE50 [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo...
- coffeeling 4y ago2019 Tom: "It is due to go online next year"