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

171–180 of 473 posts

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

#171

Post by janalsncm »

cyberax wrote: post #158
culopatin wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is that maybe in 300 years someone wants to develop that land and the documents that say to not do that there are in an old version of .docx in an obsolete storage form buried under layers of bureaucracy. That’s how someone ends up living on the casket growing a massive thyroid. Same reason that makes us not write code that only the author can understand (when working in a team), we need to plan ahead in the sa…

Options: 1. So you start digging and find huge concrete cylinders with clearly marked "radioactive" warning signs. Hilarity ensues, people sue each other, and cylinders get moved somewhere else. 2. You just build a house on the ground (without digging). Nothing bad happens. 3. Civilization collapses, nobody cares about the abandoned casks.

There is a fourth option. Nuclear waste can be used in dirty bombs and poisons as well. So waste sites should be somewhat secure.

So in the analogy it would be as if we left a stockpile of guns and ammo. I don’t think leaving a bunch of loaded guns around is a responsible way to hand the future to our children, especially since we can’t know what the future political situations will be.

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

#172

Post by Moldoteck »

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.

Why throw goldmine into the sun? France already knows how to convert 95% of the 'waste' into new fuel, why just don't copy their approach and multiply by a factor of 10?

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

#173

Post by tstrimple »

panick21_ wrote: post #157
culopatin wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is that maybe in 300 years someone wants to develop that land and the documents that say to not do that there are in an old version of .docx in an obsolete storage form buried under layers of bureaucracy. That’s how someone ends up living on the casket growing a massive thyroid. Same reason that makes us not write code that only the author can understand (when working in a team), we need to plan ahead in the sa…

Or somebody spends 100$ on a Geiger counter ... Nuclear waste will not simply be lost. The only way it gets lost if society literally collapses. And if that happens the small amount of nuclear waste is the least important problem anybody will have.

Nuclear waste has been lost multiple times throughout history and has killed people. Kind of amazing someone could think it cannot happen.

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/overview-of-the-cns-gl...

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

#174

Post by smaudet »

panick21_ wrote: post #153
chmod775 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However with civilian nuclear waste you really have to come up with pretty unlikely stuff for it to ever harm anybody. Germany will be glad to hear that. They can continue using Asse II instead of needlessly spending billions clearing it out.

Germany did exactly the stupid thing they shouldn't have done. Instead of easily managing the waste above ground they threw it into a mine. You are literally making my point for me. Burring low level nuclear waste in Asse II would have been fine. Managing the high level nuclear waste above ground would have been preferable. Germany would have saved a lot of money and trouble if they had simply managed their high leve…

"The reality is in terms of safety there were 1000s of things happening in the 70s that damaged far more people then some nuclear waste management."

Eh, no. You are making my point for me. All the "nuclear is safe and sustainable" propoganda hinges on getting a series of highly complex reactors all built and interoperating (well), and even then I am not clear that all the fuel is re-used, or that the "unspent" portions have some amazing-yet-not-yet-known use. I am sick and tired to the argument that "it's ok lets just do thes 20 other things 5 of which don't even exist yet and have innumerable hurdles facing them and it will be fine".

It's really not fine, as you state we are quite good at making mistakes and bungling things, adding more factors into the equation increases the risk of something going wrong, it doesn't reduce them. We can even see from this article, the "solutions" already involve unproven theories that we think quite possibly are wrong, and yet the plans proceed as if nothing were to go wrong.

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

#175

Post by LegionMammal978 »

jrflowers wrote: post #163
panick21_ wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending. Did you read to much Greenpeace propaganda or maybe was it some cheap action movie? And I'm not against spending money. I'm pro-spending money. I want them to spend money on next generation nuclear technology that actually uses the 'waste' to produce energy and other things, like medical isotopes and nuclear batteries. This waste that would be p…

> Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending. What does this sentence mean? >If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway.

By my reading, it's the opposite, that only a society that has already ended (of some other cause) would be incapable of managing nuclear waste; dangerous levels of mismanagement would only occur in a postapocalyptic setting or similar.

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

#176

Post by paavope »

jrflowers wrote: post #163
panick21_ wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending. Did you read to much Greenpeace propaganda or maybe was it some cheap action movie? And I'm not against spending money. I'm pro-spending money. I want them to spend money on next generation nuclear technology that actually uses the 'waste' to produce energy and other things, like medical isotopes and nuclear batteries. This waste that would be p…

> Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending. What does this sentence mean? >If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway.

I think the argument was that if the society loses the ability to manage nuclear waste, it would have been due to some societal collapse caused by other reasons.

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

#177

Post by smaudet »

panick21_ wrote: post #155
j16sdiz wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have thief/wild life/earthquakes/floods/some rare natural disasters, and forget to go back and check if the container is intact.

A thief is mostly just scifi nonsense. Most Earthquakes would damage the casks. Unless its right on the fault line this at best causes some damages that would have to be repaired. This is incredibly unlikely to ever happen in most of the world. Also burring the casks is more likely to cause issues in case of a major unexpected earth quake. This is one of those maybe ever few 100 years somebody has to move the casks.…

"A thief is mostly just scifi nonsense."

Yes, militaries, secret services and terrorists don't exist. Russia/China/USA don't exist and wouldn't find it incredibly convenient to cause major damage to each other by "leaking" these stockpiles. Added benefit, it only would kill those exposed and leave machinery untouched. Nobody would ever steal stuff like this. /S

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

#178

Post by karlerss »

janalsncm wrote: post #171
cyberax wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Options: 1. So you start digging and find huge concrete cylinders with clearly marked "radioactive" warning signs. Hilarity ensues, people sue each other, and cylinders get moved somewhere else. 2. You just build a house on the ground (without digging). Nothing bad happens. 3. Civilization collapses, nobody cares about the abandoned casks.

There is a fourth option. Nuclear waste can be used in dirty bombs and poisons as well. So waste sites should be somewhat secure. So in the analogy it would be as if we left a stockpile of guns and ammo. I don’t think leaving a bunch of loaded guns around is a responsible way to hand the future to our children, especially since we can’t know what the future political situations will be.

But we did leave a stockpile of weapons and ammo. It's a minor inconvenience.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_bomb_disposal_i...

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

#179

Post by paavope »

Krasnol wrote: post #170
panick21_ wrote: post #101

I just don't like this, a huge amount of money spent for nothing. This fuel can be managed just fine above ground. Yes maybe ever couple 100 years you might have to move it, who cares. If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway. Also, this is not 'waste' there are interesting and unique materials there that might be relevant in the next 100+ years. Not to mention that th…

This sheer ignorance around nuclear energy is the main reason I'm happy it already peaked in the Western World and is replaced by safe and clean renewable energies. I mean, you don't even have to look far these days. It's Finland. You know...the country just around the corner of our old and new arch enemy, Russia. And you want to create an additional target for sabotage? Also, you're talking about wasting money? Repr…

> Unlike nuclear, which Finland had to shut down recently because it just wasn't worth the money to keep it running...

What are you referring to here? Nuclear power has not been shut down here in Finland to my knowledge.

There have been times when production has been scaled down because there is temporarily excess energy available, when it is windy (turbines produce more) and warm (warming uses less), but that is a temporary situation.

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

#180

Post by smaudet »

LegionMammal978 wrote: post #175
jrflowers wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Again, this is just delusional. Nuclear waste can not be society ending. What does this sentence mean? >If your society isn't capable managing nuclear waste then nobody will care anymore anyway.

By my reading, it's the opposite, that only a society that has already ended (of some other cause) would be incapable of managing nuclear waste; dangerous levels of mismanagement would only occur in a postapocalyptic setting or similar.

"dangerous levels of mismanagement would only occur in a postapocalyptic setting."

I know it's not your argument, but based on what exactly?

Accidents (repeatedly) happen. I don't get where this concept comes from that accidents are suddenly "delusional". If you don't believe me go check your home house fire rate. Accidents are frequent, safety controls just help reduce frequency. There is nothing delusional here, other than the idea we can suddenly obviate accidents.

Post reply on HN