4 ms·

Solutions are already being made for spent nuclear fuel, no reason why that wouldn't apply in this scenario. In fact its massive overkill for this particular si

by esskay 2y ago

Solutions are already being made for spent nuclear fuel, no reason why that wouldn't apply in this scenario. In fact its massive overkill for this particular situation but still an option if its needed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoy_WJ3mE50

kvemkon 2y ago
> These tunnels are designed for 100,000 years Reminds me of: "Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts" (19.05.2017) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-s... https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flooded-thanks-global-warming/ https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flo... https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/doomsday-arctic-seed-vault-floods-permafrost-melts-svalbard-global-seed-vault-a7746526.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/doomsday-a... "Perma" means not "just" 100000 years, but forever. The reality is different and unpredictable. Doomsday-proof architectures fail already nowadays.
- elcritch 2y ago
  Yet there are places which have been geologically stable for 100's of millions of years or more. Change does happen but the risks can be made negligible compared to the various risks associated with other sources of energy. The damages of worse case nuclear waste leakage would also likely be very localized and manageable. Meanwhile fossil fuels have enormous environmental impacts across huge areas. Even solar and wind have large ecological impacts and aren't (likely) capable of replacing fossil fuels in time to prevent potentially catastrophic effects from global warming. It's all about weighing the risks.
- smegger001 2y ago
  it doesen't need to last forever though just long enough that it doesn't raise radiation levels a unsafe amount over the natural background radiation load. those elements are already present in the ground thats where we get them after all.
mint2 2y ago
Here’s an interesting cautionary tale on radioisotopes. The goiania incident: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident Not saying the batteries would be this bad, but having widespread sources of radiation in the hands of people who know nothing is a bad idea. Even relatively benign ones like Ni-63 can go sideways if someone ingests it. These batteries seem to be intended only for very specialized niche applications, which is as it should be.

by esskay 2y ago

kvemkon 2y ago

> These tunnels are designed for 100,000 years Reminds me of: "Arctic stronghold of world’s seeds flooded after permafrost melts" (19.05.2017) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-stronghold-of-worlds-seeds-flooded-after-permafrost-melts https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/19/arctic-s... https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flooded-thanks-global-warming/ https://www.wired.com/2017/05/arctic-doomsday-seed-vault-flo... https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/doomsday-arctic-seed-vault-floods-permafrost-melts-svalbard-global-seed-vault-a7746526.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/doomsday-a... "Perma" means not "just" 100000 years, but forever. The reality is different and unpredictable. Doomsday-proof architectures fail already nowadays.

elcritch 2y ago
Yet there are places which have been geologically stable for 100's of millions of years or more. Change does happen but the risks can be made negligible compared to the various risks associated with other sources of energy. The damages of worse case nuclear waste leakage would also likely be very localized and manageable. Meanwhile fossil fuels have enormous environmental impacts across huge areas. Even solar and wind have large ecological impacts and aren't (likely) capable of replacing fossil fuels in time to prevent potentially catastrophic effects from global warming. It's all about weighing the risks.
smegger001 2y ago
it doesen't need to last forever though just long enough that it doesn't raise radiation levels a unsafe amount over the natural background radiation load. those elements are already present in the ground thats where we get them after all.

mint2 2y ago

Here’s an interesting cautionary tale on radioisotopes. The goiania incident: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident Not saying the batteries would be this bad, but having widespread sources of radiation in the hands of people who know nothing is a bad idea. Even relatively benign ones like Ni-63 can go sideways if someone ingests it. These batteries seem to be intended only for very specialized niche applications, which is as it should be.