6 ms·

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

by Manuel_D 1y ago

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
      It's politics. The US already built a waste site in Yucca Mountain, but never bothered to actually use it for political reasons. Digging a shaft half a kilometer into bedrock and sealing it is not state of the art.
- Manuel_D 1y ago
  2) I asked about waste buried in the ground, not in transit. 3) if a waste barrel explodes, somehow, underground how does the waste make it's way through a mile of bedrock? 4) Again, how does a fire bring the wast up through a mile of bedrock? 5) This is just a vague statement. 6) So the concern is that future society will forget that this is a waste site, mine a mile deep and retrieve waste, and never figure out that the waste is bad for them? This is rather specific hypothetical that IMO demonstrates just how hard it is for a nuclear waste site to result in contamination.
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.

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
    It's politics. The US already built a waste site in Yucca Mountain, but never bothered to actually use it for political reasons. Digging a shaft half a kilometer into bedrock and sealing it is not state of the art.
Manuel_D 1y ago
2) I asked about waste buried in the ground, not in transit. 3) if a waste barrel explodes, somehow, underground how does the waste make it's way through a mile of bedrock? 4) Again, how does a fire bring the wast up through a mile of bedrock? 5) This is just a vague statement. 6) So the concern is that future society will forget that this is a waste site, mine a mile deep and retrieve waste, and never figure out that the waste is bad for them? This is rather specific hypothetical that IMO demonstrates just how hard it is for a nuclear waste site to result in contamination.

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.