8 ms·

I don't disagree that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely under good conditions[1]. But I think a fallacy to claim that natural phenomena should inherently

I don't disagree that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely under good conditions[1]. But I think a fallacy to claim that natural phenomena should inherently be considered "environmentally safe" in human terms. There are coal seam fires that have been going on for centuries and the pollution of these is just as bad as the pollution generated by human created coal mine fires (and that's truly awful, a significant source of carbon pollution). [1] The problem with nuclear reactors isn't that their pollution couldn't disposed of with ideal methods but that when they run by for-profit corporations, you will always have the company skirting the edge of what's safe 'cause corporations just go bankrupt with catastrophic events and so their risk-reward behavior isn't the risk-reward optima for humanity.

Manuel_D 1y ago
What are the conditions under which nuclear waste buried a mile deep in bedrock will post a risk to society?
- Loughla 1y ago
  Burying it in a cheaper place that happens to flood occasionally?
  - legitster 1y ago
    Insisting on only worst case scenarios is such a bad faith argument. OP specifically asked about deep repositories. It would be like having a discussion about green energy and insisting that people should assume dams will fail or that blades are going to fly off of turbines.
- brians 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
    Can you link me?
- bobmcnamara 1y ago
  1) the assumption that because something can be done safely it will be done safely 2) transportation to the site: https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pdf https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pd... 3) exploding waste barrels due to corner cutting in kitty litter selection exposing surface workers and contaminating the work area - only 1/2 mile down but this type of accident is depth independent https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump... 4) fires 5) lack of a safety culture 6) communicating to future peoples not to mine here 7) long term structural stability and management (ex: Morsleben radioactive waste repository and Schacht Asse II)
  - roughly 1y ago
    Just to call it explicitly, because I think this is one of the big points of misunderstanding between pro- and anti-nuclear people (take that as a very rough categorization and not an accusation) - There is a difference between “something can be done correctly” and “something is likely to be done correctly.” Nuclear advocates I’ve read tend to argue the former - it’s possible to have safe reactors, it’s possible to keep the waste sequestered safely, there’s not a technical reason why nuclear is inherently unsafe. Skeptics tend to be making a different argument - not that it’s not possible to do things safely and correctly, but that in our current late-capitalist milieu, it’s almost impossible that we _will_. It’s not an argument about capability, it’s an argument about will and what happens in bureaucracies, both public and private.
    - Terr_ 1y ago
      Yeah, if waste management was as viable as proponents claim, places like Hanford [0] would already be an inactive site with a memorial park on top. Whether it's technology, economics, or politics, clearly the state of the art is deficient because we currently have persistent deficiencies. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
      - Manuel_D 1y ago
- sllabres 1y ago
  It's not a mile deep, but I think the depth isn't the problem here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
  - Manuel_D 1y ago
    This is the one I was referring to, though I guess it's just over half a kilometer deep: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re... The Asse II site used an existing mine to avoid having to excavate a new tunnel, which subsequently flooded.
glompers 1y ago
> There are coal seam fires that have been going on for centuries and the pollution of these is just as bad as the pollution generated by human created coal mine fires (and that's truly awful, a significant source of carbon pollution). Has CO2 fire suppression been unsuccessfully attempted in these seams? Since nobody is underground and we know how to inject CO2 into underground deposits at various pressures, it seems like it would be a good candidate. Plus, with rotary steerable drilling, we could come in laterally (from a safe location above ground) to as many depths of injection as necessary.
- a11r 1y ago
  These are large coal seams with significant exposure to the atmosphere. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jharia_coalfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jharia_coalfield for an example. That excavator in the picture is not trying to put out the fire, it is just mining coal that happens to be burning. Spray some water, put out the fire and ship it off to customers.
- recursivecaveat 1y ago
  Apparently in mines they are sometimes extinguished with nitrogen. For less contained ones, injecting water or mud, while trying to seal off the ground with impermeable clay to halt oxygen and hopefully choke the fumes. Their scope can be huge though, and they generate a lot of energy which can cause subsidence to open up new passages. The Centralia fire in the US is apparently 15km².
- rkagerer 1y ago
  I have a question on rotary steerable drilling. I gather we're only talking about a degree or less of deflection on the steering head. But how does the km's long rest of the stack behind the head snake through the curves? Is it like rail cars, with a little bit of angular bend allowed at the connection of each segment?
legitster 1y ago
No one is saying that it's "inherently" safe but there are a lot of people who claim it is inherently unsafe which is clearly untrue.
nec4b 1y ago
>> The problem with nuclear reactors isn't that their pollution couldn't disposed of with ideal methods but that when they run by for-profit corporations, you will always have the company skirting the edge of what's safe 'cause corporations just go bankrupt with catastrophic events and so their risk-reward behavior isn't the risk-reward optima for humanity. Chernobyl was state run.

Manuel_D 1y ago

What are the conditions under which nuclear waste buried a mile deep in bedrock will post a risk to society?

Loughla 1y ago
Burying it in a cheaper place that happens to flood occasionally?
- legitster 1y ago
  Insisting on only worst case scenarios is such a bad faith argument. OP specifically asked about deep repositories. It would be like having a discussion about green energy and insisting that people should assume dams will fail or that blades are going to fly off of turbines.
brians 1y ago
[flagged]
- BriggyDwiggs42 1y ago
  Can you link me?
bobmcnamara 1y ago
1) the assumption that because something can be done safely it will be done safely 2) transportation to the site: https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pdf https://static.ewg.org/files/nuclearwaste/plumes/national.pd... 3) exploding waste barrels due to corner cutting in kitty litter selection exposing surface workers and contaminating the work area - only 1/2 mile down but this type of accident is depth independent https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-mexico-nuclear-dump... 4) fires 5) lack of a safety culture 6) communicating to future peoples not to mine here 7) long term structural stability and management (ex: Morsleben radioactive waste repository and Schacht Asse II)
- roughly 1y ago
  Just to call it explicitly, because I think this is one of the big points of misunderstanding between pro- and anti-nuclear people (take that as a very rough categorization and not an accusation) - There is a difference between “something can be done correctly” and “something is likely to be done correctly.” Nuclear advocates I’ve read tend to argue the former - it’s possible to have safe reactors, it’s possible to keep the waste sequestered safely, there’s not a technical reason why nuclear is inherently unsafe. Skeptics tend to be making a different argument - not that it’s not possible to do things safely and correctly, but that in our current late-capitalist milieu, it’s almost impossible that we _will_. It’s not an argument about capability, it’s an argument about will and what happens in bureaucracies, both public and private.
  - Terr_ 1y ago
    Yeah, if waste management was as viable as proponents claim, places like Hanford [0] would already be an inactive site with a memorial park on top. Whether it's technology, economics, or politics, clearly the state of the art is deficient because we currently have persistent deficiencies. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site
    - Manuel_D 1y ago
sllabres 1y ago
It's not a mile deep, but I think the depth isn't the problem here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asse_II_mine
- Manuel_D 1y ago
  This is the one I was referring to, though I guess it's just over half a kilometer deep: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re... The Asse II site used an existing mine to avoid having to excavate a new tunnel, which subsequently flooded.

glompers 1y ago

> There are coal seam fires that have been going on for centuries and the pollution of these is just as bad as the pollution generated by human created coal mine fires (and that's truly awful, a significant source of carbon pollution). Has CO2 fire suppression been unsuccessfully attempted in these seams? Since nobody is underground and we know how to inject CO2 into underground deposits at various pressures, it seems like it would be a good candidate. Plus, with rotary steerable drilling, we could come in laterally (from a safe location above ground) to as many depths of injection as necessary.

a11r 1y ago
These are large coal seams with significant exposure to the atmosphere. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jharia_coalfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jharia_coalfield for an example. That excavator in the picture is not trying to put out the fire, it is just mining coal that happens to be burning. Spray some water, put out the fire and ship it off to customers.
recursivecaveat 1y ago
Apparently in mines they are sometimes extinguished with nitrogen. For less contained ones, injecting water or mud, while trying to seal off the ground with impermeable clay to halt oxygen and hopefully choke the fumes. Their scope can be huge though, and they generate a lot of energy which can cause subsidence to open up new passages. The Centralia fire in the US is apparently 15km².
rkagerer 1y ago
I have a question on rotary steerable drilling. I gather we're only talking about a degree or less of deflection on the steering head. But how does the km's long rest of the stack behind the head snake through the curves? Is it like rail cars, with a little bit of angular bend allowed at the connection of each segment?

legitster 1y ago

No one is saying that it's "inherently" safe but there are a lot of people who claim it is inherently unsafe which is clearly untrue.

nec4b 1y ago

>> The problem with nuclear reactors isn't that their pollution couldn't disposed of with ideal methods but that when they run by for-profit corporations, you will always have the company skirting the edge of what's safe 'cause corporations just go bankrupt with catastrophic events and so their risk-reward behavior isn't the risk-reward optima for humanity. Chernobyl was state run.