Scandinavia is geographically stable and has been politically stable for a long time, I can think of no better place for a global nuclear waste storage facility.
Meteors is just s dumb risk to consider in this case, any meteor capable of breaching an underground nuclear waste will cause far worse problems than the nuclear material will.
The baltic isn’t that tidal either, so tidal waves can be disregarded.
Earthquakes have happened here, but they are few and far between.
I recommend that you watch the BBC Horizon Documentary “Nuclear Nightmares” that talks about our fear of radiation.
why bother investing enormous amounts of money into a tech that’s already problematic? when there are better solutions at hand?
I’m not anti-nuclear, I just think further investment into it is misguided when there are so many other options that don’t create tens of thousands of years of radioisotopes that have to go somewhere.
good on Scandinavia, the rest of the world isn’t in such privileged positions. As seen in Fukushima. As seen in the hundreds of cooling ponds all over the US.
nothing, not a single thing you’ve argued, will in any way reduce the radioactive leftovers nuclear reactors produce and most of the world is putting off for the next generation to fix.
Like climate change.
How many crises do you think those poor kids are going to be able to manage at once?
Which crisis is the most important to manage in the short term.
Climate change, nuclear power gives us a huge tool to deal with it by shutting down fossil furl plants.
If we fail the climate change, the nuclear waste will be a tiny problem to deal with.
With nuclear power we at least give people a problem they can deal with, climate change is far, far worse.
The ammount of radioactive waste is tiny relative to normal dumps, and as described before, it is easy to deal with, dig a deep hole, put the waste in it, refill it.
Boom problem solved.
CO2 from fossil plats will keep up climate change for centuries.
The ammount of radioactive waste is tiny relative to normal dumps, and as described before, it is easy to deal with, dig a deep hole, put the waste in it, refill it.
Boom problem solved.
I wish it were that simple. Meanwhile, in reality:
I am very confused now, you link to articles talking about storage pool issues, but I never mentioned storage pools.
I am talking about what they are doing in Finland.
They have drilled a very deep hole in the bedrock, built vaults where they will put cey casks of nuclear waste, then they will backfill the hole and tunnels with clay.
This is how you do it.
No one considers a storage pool as permanent storage.
Scandinavia is geographically stable and has been politically stable for a long time, I can think of no better place for a global nuclear waste storage facility.
Meteors is just s dumb risk to consider in this case, any meteor capable of breaching an underground nuclear waste will cause far worse problems than the nuclear material will.
The baltic isn’t that tidal either, so tidal waves can be disregarded.
Earthquakes have happened here, but they are few and far between.
I recommend that you watch the BBC Horizon Documentary “Nuclear Nightmares” that talks about our fear of radiation.
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7pqwo8
why bother investing enormous amounts of money into a tech that’s already problematic? when there are better solutions at hand?
I’m not anti-nuclear, I just think further investment into it is misguided when there are so many other options that don’t create tens of thousands of years of radioisotopes that have to go somewhere.
good on Scandinavia, the rest of the world isn’t in such privileged positions. As seen in Fukushima. As seen in the hundreds of cooling ponds all over the US.
Because we need the baseload, even a huge wind or solar farm can provide the stable baseload.
In my first comment, I suggested that we would build a facility large enough to handle global nuclear waste.
yeah, I get it, you’re whole hog on it, the enthusiasm comes through loud and clear.
I don’t agree, but there’s no amount of sense that’s going to sway the already decided.
I feel the exact way about you in this thread.
nothing, not a single thing you’ve argued, will in any way reduce the radioactive leftovers nuclear reactors produce and most of the world is putting off for the next generation to fix.
Like climate change.
How many crises do you think those poor kids are going to be able to manage at once?
Which crisis is the most important to manage in the short term.
Climate change, nuclear power gives us a huge tool to deal with it by shutting down fossil furl plants.
If we fail the climate change, the nuclear waste will be a tiny problem to deal with.
With nuclear power we at least give people a problem they can deal with, climate change is far, far worse.
The ammount of radioactive waste is tiny relative to normal dumps, and as described before, it is easy to deal with, dig a deep hole, put the waste in it, refill it.
Boom problem solved.
CO2 from fossil plats will keep up climate change for centuries.
I wish it were that simple. Meanwhile, in reality:
https://publicintegrity.org/national-security/scientists-say-nuclear-fuel-pools-around-the-country-pose-safety-and-health-risks/
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/safer-storage-spent-nuclear-fuel
https://www.epri.com/research/products/000000003002000640
https://blog.ucsusa.org/dlochbaum/possible-source-of-leaks-at-spent-fuel-pools-at/
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1209/ML120970249.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK373720/
I am very confused now, you link to articles talking about storage pool issues, but I never mentioned storage pools.
I am talking about what they are doing in Finland.
They have drilled a very deep hole in the bedrock, built vaults where they will put cey casks of nuclear waste, then they will backfill the hole and tunnels with clay.
This is how you do it.
No one considers a storage pool as permanent storage.