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

91–100 of 473 posts

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

#91

Post by wkat4242 »

gtvwill wrote: post #87
roughly wrote: post #81

Stewart Brand has an interesting take on this in Whole Earth Discipline (which is quite a read) - this is energy we don't know how to use yet. In 100 years, we'll be digging this stuff right up again, because there's energy in there. I'm not typically as utopian - techno or otherwise - as Brand, but I agree with him here - the nuclear industry is less than a century old, and we've already got a pretty good idea how t…

Less common side of the argument a friend presented to me. We shouldn't use nuclear in mainstream use cases now because we don't harness enough of its power. We're basically depleting a future fuel supply before we even know how to use it properly. It has more value to us in the future when utilization is at higher %. Personally not sure which side of the fence I sit on. It definitely has benefits now, but we also ha…

Once we're that much more capable we'll be doing fusion which requires different elements for fuel anyway.

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

#92

Post by jupp0r »

gtvwill wrote: post #87
roughly wrote: post #81

Stewart Brand has an interesting take on this in Whole Earth Discipline (which is quite a read) - this is energy we don't know how to use yet. In 100 years, we'll be digging this stuff right up again, because there's energy in there. I'm not typically as utopian - techno or otherwise - as Brand, but I agree with him here - the nuclear industry is less than a century old, and we've already got a pretty good idea how t…

Less common side of the argument a friend presented to me. We shouldn't use nuclear in mainstream use cases now because we don't harness enough of its power. We're basically depleting a future fuel supply before we even know how to use it properly. It has more value to us in the future when utilization is at higher %. Personally not sure which side of the fence I sit on. It definitely has benefits now, but we also ha…

There's also the opportunity cost of not using nuclear fuel right now, instead burning fossil fuels and incurring all the irreversible long term damage that comes with it.

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

#93

Post by thumbsup-_- »

100k years. Reality is that in 50 years the fuel will start leaking and then the cost of securing the vicinity/repairs will be too high for anyone to bear. Govt will try to ignore scientific warnings while some politicians will criticize the govt for not doing anything while others will say it's a waste of money. After some pressure, the govt will start repair work but in a few years the cost of repairs will be 3-10x the original estimates and with no signs of leakage stopping. After another 5-10 years, the govt will decide to pull the plug and a blame game will begin.

So, to summarize, we are not the species that can really plan for 100k years and have the conviction of maintaining those plans.

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

#94

Post by wkat4242 »

PinguTS wrote: post #38
iso1631 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It is exactly that. We are putting it deep into the ground and ignoring the problem.

Yeah exactly like us not worrying about all the CO2 30 years ago "because the atmosphere is so big mankind couldn't possibly make a change"

We should balance ourselves with nature now instead of dumping it on the future.

This way we're solving the CO2 problem the way a gambler solves their debt by borrowing more money to pay off loans.

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

#95

Post by est31 »

thumbsup-_- wrote: post #93

100k years. Reality is that in 50 years the fuel will start leaking and then the cost of securing the vicinity/repairs will be too high for anyone to bear. Govt will try to ignore scientific warnings while some politicians will criticize the govt for not doing anything while others will say it's a waste of money. After some pressure, the govt will start repair work but in a few years the cost of repairs will be 3-10x…

We have some projects that have been continuously running for tens of thousands of years, like plant and animal breeding for example. Dogs for example originated tens of thousands of years ago.

Compare this to running nuclear power plants and operating radioactive waste storage facilities. That we haven't done for even a single century. Already now we know way better how to build nuclear power plants than 40 years ago, and our knowledge is only improving.

Personally I think we shouldn't bury any highly contaminant waste for the next 300 years, until we gain experience from the medium to low contaminant storage sites.

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

#96

Post by civilitty »

gtvwill wrote: post #87
roughly wrote: post #81

Stewart Brand has an interesting take on this in Whole Earth Discipline (which is quite a read) - this is energy we don't know how to use yet. In 100 years, we'll be digging this stuff right up again, because there's energy in there. I'm not typically as utopian - techno or otherwise - as Brand, but I agree with him here - the nuclear industry is less than a century old, and we've already got a pretty good idea how t…

Less common side of the argument a friend presented to me. We shouldn't use nuclear in mainstream use cases now because we don't harness enough of its power. We're basically depleting a future fuel supply before we even know how to use it properly. It has more value to us in the future when utilization is at higher %. Personally not sure which side of the fence I sit on. It definitely has benefits now, but we also ha…

That doesn’t apply to fission power due to breeder reactors. We can wring more power and efficiency out of nuclear waste by just sticking it into a breeder reactor to absorb neutrons until the waste is up-converted back into fuel.

That’s where the increased efficiency and gains will come from in the future - better and better ways to convert big atoms into fissile atoms. It doesn’t matter if those big atoms come from nuclear waste or some other source (like thorium!)

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

#97

Post by legulere »

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…

There were some discussions about the safety of the encasing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBS-3#Criticism

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

#98

Post by tedunangst »

gtvwill wrote: post #87
roughly wrote: post #81

Stewart Brand has an interesting take on this in Whole Earth Discipline (which is quite a read) - this is energy we don't know how to use yet. In 100 years, we'll be digging this stuff right up again, because there's energy in there. I'm not typically as utopian - techno or otherwise - as Brand, but I agree with him here - the nuclear industry is less than a century old, and we've already got a pretty good idea how t…

Less common side of the argument a friend presented to me. We shouldn't use nuclear in mainstream use cases now because we don't harness enough of its power. We're basically depleting a future fuel supply before we even know how to use it properly. It has more value to us in the future when utilization is at higher %. Personally not sure which side of the fence I sit on. It definitely has benefits now, but we also ha…

Seems the same argument could be applied to coal and oil, but at least the byproducts of nuclear reactors could be potentially useful. Not much hope for the remnants of burnt coal.

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

#99

Post by tedunangst »

mongol wrote: post #75

Since the fuel will be encased in copper, and copper is quite valuable, I see a future, some centuries or millenia from now, where people will try to steal it, without realizing the dangers associated. With bad side effects as consequence.

So a few copper thieves get radiation poisoning? How bad is that, really?

It seems like all nuclear waste doomerism is based on the same assumption that at some point in the future all of humanity is reduced to 100 individuals and all of them decide to dig into the same mine shaft.

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

#100

Post by agumonkey »

plastic3169 wrote: post #13

There is nice arty documentary film ”Into eternity” about Onkalo (made already 2010) https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ayLxB9fV2y4

One of the most mind stopping video I've seen in the recent decades. The linguistic problem is so simple yet so profound.
Post reply on HN