5 ms·

Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.

linksnapzz 3y ago
Burying things securely until a better solution can be found is a better than letting them sit onsite in storage pools...
- phkahler 3y ago
  But may not be better than shutting it all down.
  - linksnapzz 3y ago
    Sorry, I like reliable electricity, I don't live near a hydro plant, and I'd prefer not to burn coal. Nuclear does what I want, and if the desire for a perfect solution for waste handling gets in the way of a good method for keeping the lights on while we work towards improving the isolation and transmutation of waste-that desire needs to be set aside.
- PinguTS 3y ago
  I agree to in way that this is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. But it is not a solution.
  - linksnapzz 3y ago
    "Live in Idaho" isn't THE solution to deaths from tropical diseases; but let's not pretend that it isn't A solution...
- this_user 3y ago
  "Securely" being the key term here. Something that is buried securely today may not be buried securely tomorrow, or in 100 or a 1000 years, because the geology of the planet is not static. This can become even more of a problem if the knowledge should be lost what was buried where.
  - linksnapzz 3y ago
    The subterranean geology of granitic shield provinces doesn't change much over the course of ...human-accessible timescales.
acidburnNSA 3y ago
Lots of scientists disagree strongly with your statement. "The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-americas-nuclear-future-report-secretary-energy https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-am... One thing that drives me craziest of all is when people simultaneously claim that nuclear waste is among the most hazardous things out there while also blocking any progress to get it safely out of the biosphere.
- PinguTS 3y ago
  The thing is, that to human knowledge it is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. But still it is not a solution. A solution would be to make it non-hazardous. But there is no viable way to do it right now.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > to human knowledge it is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. No, it's not. See comments elsewhere in the thread about reprocessing.
  - aPoCoMiLogin 3y ago
    highly recommended to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
- phkahler 3y ago
  How about we reprocess it and use it as nuclear fuel. IIRC France is the only country that does this. We just don't like the kind of reactor needed.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    > IIRC France is the only country that does this No, many countries do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...
sofixa 3y ago
Better in the ground that the air.
lesuorac 3y ago
I mean we could treat it like a coal power plant and just dilute the radioactive material into the air instead.
iso1631 3y ago
As Ostrich policy is ignoring the problem -- specifically not looking at the problem. Burying the Geiger counters would be an Ostrich policy
- acidburnNSA 3y ago
  Exactly.
- PinguTS 3y ago
  It is exactly that. We are putting it deep into the ground and ignoring the problem.
  - iso1631 3y ago
    My guniea pigs hide from predators by burying themselves in hay. It's fairly effective. That's not what as Ostrich does. An Ostrich leaves itself exposed and just closes its eyes. Mankinds attitude to all sorts of threats is an ostrich policy, but burying nuclear waste is not one of those. Leaving it in a barrel and saying "nothing to see here" would be.
  - circuit10 3y ago
    If it doesn’t cause any problems when it’s underground then that’s just called solving the problem
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Yeah exactly like us not worrying about all the CO2 30 years ago "because the atmosphere is so big mankind couldn't possibly make a change" We should balance ourselves with nature now instead of dumping it on the future. This way we're solving the CO2 problem the way a gambler solves their debt by borrowing more money to pay off loans.
shawabawa3 3y ago
burying is absolutely a solution, especially when nuclear fuel is so dense you can store all the waste of humanity's power needs in a relatively small area
mastax 3y ago
Why not? What specific problems does it not solve?
omginternets 3y ago
Do you prefer venting it to the atmosphere? That's the alternative for producing substantial amounts of energy reliably.

Burying things securely until a better solution can be found is a better than letting them sit onsite in storage pools...

phkahler 3y ago
But may not be better than shutting it all down.
- linksnapzz 3y ago
  Sorry, I like reliable electricity, I don't live near a hydro plant, and I'd prefer not to burn coal. Nuclear does what I want, and if the desire for a perfect solution for waste handling gets in the way of a good method for keeping the lights on while we work towards improving the isolation and transmutation of waste-that desire needs to be set aside.
PinguTS 3y ago
I agree to in way that this is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. But it is not a solution.
- linksnapzz 3y ago
  "Live in Idaho" isn't THE solution to deaths from tropical diseases; but let's not pretend that it isn't A solution...
this_user 3y ago
"Securely" being the key term here. Something that is buried securely today may not be buried securely tomorrow, or in 100 or a 1000 years, because the geology of the planet is not static. This can become even more of a problem if the knowledge should be lost what was buried where.
- linksnapzz 3y ago
  The subterranean geology of granitic shield provinces doesn't change much over the course of ...human-accessible timescales.

acidburnNSA 3y ago

Lots of scientists disagree strongly with your statement. "The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program." https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-americas-nuclear-future-report-secretary-energy https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-am... One thing that drives me craziest of all is when people simultaneously claim that nuclear waste is among the most hazardous things out there while also blocking any progress to get it safely out of the biosphere.

PinguTS 3y ago
The thing is, that to human knowledge it is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. But still it is not a solution. A solution would be to make it non-hazardous. But there is no viable way to do it right now.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > to human knowledge it is currently the only viable way to handle the situation. No, it's not. See comments elsewhere in the thread about reprocessing.
- aPoCoMiLogin 3y ago
  highly recommended to watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k
phkahler 3y ago
How about we reprocess it and use it as nuclear fuel. IIRC France is the only country that does this. We just don't like the kind of reactor needed.
- pdonis 3y ago
  > IIRC France is the only country that does this No, many countries do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing#List_of_s...

sofixa 3y ago

Better in the ground that the air.

lesuorac 3y ago

I mean we could treat it like a coal power plant and just dilute the radioactive material into the air instead.

iso1631 3y ago

As Ostrich policy is ignoring the problem -- specifically not looking at the problem. Burying the Geiger counters would be an Ostrich policy

acidburnNSA 3y ago
Exactly.
PinguTS 3y ago
It is exactly that. We are putting it deep into the ground and ignoring the problem.
- iso1631 3y ago
  My guniea pigs hide from predators by burying themselves in hay. It's fairly effective. That's not what as Ostrich does. An Ostrich leaves itself exposed and just closes its eyes. Mankinds attitude to all sorts of threats is an ostrich policy, but burying nuclear waste is not one of those. Leaving it in a barrel and saying "nothing to see here" would be.
- circuit10 3y ago
  If it doesn’t cause any problems when it’s underground then that’s just called solving the problem
- wkat4242 3y ago
  Yeah exactly like us not worrying about all the CO2 30 years ago "because the atmosphere is so big mankind couldn't possibly make a change" We should balance ourselves with nature now instead of dumping it on the future. This way we're solving the CO2 problem the way a gambler solves their debt by borrowing more money to pay off loans.

shawabawa3 3y ago

burying is absolutely a solution, especially when nuclear fuel is so dense you can store all the waste of humanity's power needs in a relatively small area

mastax 3y ago

Why not? What specific problems does it not solve?

omginternets 3y ago

Do you prefer venting it to the atmosphere? That's the alternative for producing substantial amounts of energy reliably.