4 ms·

As a species, we are still arrogant that we know how the future will pan out. In a few decades after filling that place in, people may determine that it's valu

As a species, we are still arrogant that we know how the future will pan out. In a few decades after filling that place in, people may determine that it's valuable, send in robots to get everything back out for re-use, and make the area safe again. Maybe a few hundreds of years, or thousands, but we just don't know what inventions the future will bring

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
glitchcrab 3y ago
Well that's probably because the requisite crystal ball we need to see into the future hasn't been invented yet either. The whole point of burying it is because we _can't_ know how the future will pan out. Your plan is just to keep stockpiling the waste in temporary storage for N years with the hope (faith?) that a technology will appear which can make use of it? I'd rather take the sensible option which has been developed with knowledge that we have now, rather than sitting on it for an indeterminate amount of years for some magical fix to come along.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Note that we already know how to use most radioactive waste, we choose not to deploy those technologies for various reasons (both good and bad). The technology is called breeder reactors.
- nonethewiser 3y ago
  > Well that's probably because the requisite crystal ball we need to see into the future hasn't been invented yet either. I think your reasoning is pretty sound for the existing waste (and maybe that's all you're talking about). But for new waste it's a different game. We could simply not generate it. I'm not even asserting that we shouldn't use nuclear power, just that this argument should not be over-extended. Another thing to consider with the "well it might be useful later so lets not dump it" argument is that we probably don't need the waste we already created. We can just make more.
peoplefromibiza 3y ago
> As a species, we are still arrogant that we know how the future will pan out. the fact that we don't know what the future will pan out, doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions. Everybody knows that a lock won't keep a determined thief out, but we lock the door nonetheless to make their job a little bit harder, enough to discourage the average ones. It works the same way here: there will be much better places in the future to steal the same materials. > Maybe a few hundreds of years, or thousands, but we just don't know what inventions the future will bring And yet you predicted only the worse outcome, not the best. We decide what to expect from the future, we don't predict it. Maybe in the future we'll invent technologies that will make nuclear waste as safe as clean water and kids will play with it. Who knows?
calrain 3y ago
My comments weren't taken as I meant. The issue is that the assumption is that it will take 100k years to get back in there, not that it's a bad idea to store nuclear waste. Storing it is critical for safety, but I'm sure that within 100k years we will have a way to process it that is more intelligent than just putting it in a hole. And then we can get into that storage system well before 100k years are up.
- Mutjake 3y ago
  In 100k years there’s much less need to process it anycase, the waste is very front-heavy in its radioactive harmfulness. Of course it’s still chemically harmful later on, but it does not differ from other heavy metals and is leagues better disposed of than all the lead, cadmium, arsenic, and other such stuff we have laying around (which does not decay at all).
doikor 3y ago
> In a few decades after filling that place in It won't be filled until the last nuclear reactor is closed. With current plan that is 60 years from now (or 80/100 depending on extensions for OL3). It is actually a bit more then that (a decade or two in worst case) as the plan is to also store a some of the waste from decommission of the reactors down there. Maybe even further if we decide to build more reactors which would mean adding new caverns into the site.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

glitchcrab 3y ago

Well that's probably because the requisite crystal ball we need to see into the future hasn't been invented yet either. The whole point of burying it is because we _can't_ know how the future will pan out. Your plan is just to keep stockpiling the waste in temporary storage for N years with the hope (faith?) that a technology will appear which can make use of it? I'd rather take the sensible option which has been developed with knowledge that we have now, rather than sitting on it for an indeterminate amount of years for some magical fix to come along.

tsimionescu 3y ago
Note that we already know how to use most radioactive waste, we choose not to deploy those technologies for various reasons (both good and bad). The technology is called breeder reactors.
nonethewiser 3y ago
> Well that's probably because the requisite crystal ball we need to see into the future hasn't been invented yet either. I think your reasoning is pretty sound for the existing waste (and maybe that's all you're talking about). But for new waste it's a different game. We could simply not generate it. I'm not even asserting that we shouldn't use nuclear power, just that this argument should not be over-extended. Another thing to consider with the "well it might be useful later so lets not dump it" argument is that we probably don't need the waste we already created. We can just make more.

peoplefromibiza 3y ago

> As a species, we are still arrogant that we know how the future will pan out. the fact that we don't know what the future will pan out, doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions. Everybody knows that a lock won't keep a determined thief out, but we lock the door nonetheless to make their job a little bit harder, enough to discourage the average ones. It works the same way here: there will be much better places in the future to steal the same materials. > Maybe a few hundreds of years, or thousands, but we just don't know what inventions the future will bring And yet you predicted only the worse outcome, not the best. We decide what to expect from the future, we don't predict it. Maybe in the future we'll invent technologies that will make nuclear waste as safe as clean water and kids will play with it. Who knows?

calrain 3y ago

My comments weren't taken as I meant. The issue is that the assumption is that it will take 100k years to get back in there, not that it's a bad idea to store nuclear waste. Storing it is critical for safety, but I'm sure that within 100k years we will have a way to process it that is more intelligent than just putting it in a hole. And then we can get into that storage system well before 100k years are up.

Mutjake 3y ago
In 100k years there’s much less need to process it anycase, the waste is very front-heavy in its radioactive harmfulness. Of course it’s still chemically harmful later on, but it does not differ from other heavy metals and is leagues better disposed of than all the lead, cadmium, arsenic, and other such stuff we have laying around (which does not decay at all).

doikor 3y ago

> In a few decades after filling that place in It won't be filled until the last nuclear reactor is closed. With current plan that is 60 years from now (or 80/100 depending on extensions for OL3). It is actually a bit more then that (a decade or two in worst case) as the plan is to also store a some of the waste from decommission of the reactors down there. Maybe even further if we decide to build more reactors which would mean adding new caverns into the site.