Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 473 posts

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#21

Post by acidburnNSA »

PinguTS wrote: post #18
acidburnNSA wrote: post #3

I'm excited that Onkalo will be coming onine soon, so we don't have to hear the myth that there's no solution for spent nuclear fuel anymore. The solution that enjoys a solid scientific consensus is the deep geologic repository. Another thing that is weird to me is that everyone says nuclear waste is hazardous for a uniquely long time, but it become less hazardous over time. Many non-radioactive materials, like arsen…

Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.

Lots of scientists disagree strongly with your statement.

"The conclusion that disposal is needed and that deep geologic disposal is the scientifically preferred approach has been reached by every expert panel that has looked at the issue and by every other country that is pursuing a nuclear waste management program."

https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/blue-ribbon-commission-am...

One thing that drives me craziest of all is when people simultaneously claim that nuclear waste is among the most hazardous things out there while also blocking any progress to get it safely out of the biosphere.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#22

Post by lesuorac »

PinguTS wrote: post #18
acidburnNSA wrote: post #3

I'm excited that Onkalo will be coming onine soon, so we don't have to hear the myth that there's no solution for spent nuclear fuel anymore. The solution that enjoys a solid scientific consensus is the deep geologic repository. Another thing that is weird to me is that everyone says nuclear waste is hazardous for a uniquely long time, but it become less hazardous over time. Many non-radioactive materials, like arsen…

Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.

I mean we could treat it like a coal power plant and just dilute the radioactive material into the air instead.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#23

Post by linksnapzz »

PinguTS wrote: post #18
acidburnNSA wrote: post #3

I'm excited that Onkalo will be coming onine soon, so we don't have to hear the myth that there's no solution for spent nuclear fuel anymore. The solution that enjoys a solid scientific consensus is the deep geologic repository. Another thing that is weird to me is that everyone says nuclear waste is hazardous for a uniquely long time, but it become less hazardous over time. Many non-radioactive materials, like arsen…

Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.

Burying things securely until a better solution can be found is a better than letting them sit onsite in storage pools...

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#24

Post by iso1631 »

PinguTS wrote: post #18
acidburnNSA wrote: post #3

I'm excited that Onkalo will be coming onine soon, so we don't have to hear the myth that there's no solution for spent nuclear fuel anymore. The solution that enjoys a solid scientific consensus is the deep geologic repository. Another thing that is weird to me is that everyone says nuclear waste is hazardous for a uniquely long time, but it become less hazardous over time. Many non-radioactive materials, like arsen…

Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.

As Ostrich policy is ignoring the problem -- specifically not looking at the problem. Burying the Geiger counters would be an Ostrich policy

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#25

Post by acidburnNSA »

iso1631 wrote: post #24
PinguTS wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.

As Ostrich policy is ignoring the problem -- specifically not looking at the problem. Burying the Geiger counters would be an Ostrich policy

Exactly.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#26

Post by acidburnNSA »

pintxo wrote: post #17
elif wrote: post #8

Personally I'm rooting for the future where a fleet of falcon 9's launch escape velocity stage 2's that head straight for the sun. Underground is nice until you get radioactive groundwater. The time cost of 100k years of maintaining safety seems more than the financial cost of maintaining a F9 fleet and disposing of second stages.

How would this ever be acceptable, given that rockets have a failure rate that’s not zero?

Everyone suggests throwing it into the sun until they think about this fact. Stable geologic formations are far preferable, by orders of magnitude, for this reason.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#27

Post by shawabawa3 »

PinguTS wrote: post #18
acidburnNSA wrote: post #3

I'm excited that Onkalo will be coming onine soon, so we don't have to hear the myth that there's no solution for spent nuclear fuel anymore. The solution that enjoys a solid scientific consensus is the deep geologic repository. Another thing that is weird to me is that everyone says nuclear waste is hazardous for a uniquely long time, but it become less hazardous over time. Many non-radioactive materials, like arsen…

Burying things in the ground is not a solution. It's more an Ostrich policy.

burying is absolutely a solution, especially when nuclear fuel is so dense you can store all the waste of humanity's power needs in a relatively small area

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#28

Post by SoftTalker »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #3

I'm excited that Onkalo will be coming onine soon, so we don't have to hear the myth that there's no solution for spent nuclear fuel anymore. The solution that enjoys a solid scientific consensus is the deep geologic repository. Another thing that is weird to me is that everyone says nuclear waste is hazardous for a uniquely long time, but it become less hazardous over time. Many non-radioactive materials, like arsen…

Arsenic and mercury came out of the ground, originally. It's not like we can make those elements from scratch. Diluting them and putting them back where we got them is probably fine.

Nuclear waste is something new we are creating, but I'd rather have it deep underground in a geologically stable place, than sitting in casks on the surface.

Re: Finland's plan to bury spent nuclear fuel for 100k years

#29

Post by pfdietz »

If we're burying spent fuel, that's a tacit admission that nuclear will not be powering the world, because a once-through fuel cycle with thermal reactors (like the ones used in Finland) powering the world runs out of cheap uranium very quickly.

In any case, the lack of a geological repository for commercial high level waste in the US is mostly because there's no stakeholder who really needs it. Storing spent fuel in dry casks is a perfectly cromulent solution -- and that waste could be buried or reprocessed later (more easily, after it cools more) so this doesn't rule out any other solution.

Post reply on HN