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

Oklo, the Earth's Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor (2018)

iaea.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 124 posts

Re: Oklo, the Earth's Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor (2018)

#61

Post by lostlogin »

Manuel_D wrote: post #53
bobmcnamara wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.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-m…

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 tha…

Regarding 3) and 4): Ground water contamination.

Re: Oklo, the Earth's Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor (2018)

#62

Post by Manuel_D »

lostlogin wrote: post #61
Manuel_D wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

Regarding 3) and 4): Ground water contamination.

You can dig in bedrock that has no groundwater.

Furthermore, naturally occurring uranium exists in groundwater and needs to be filtered out in places where levels exceed safe limits. So it's not like burying waste is creating a new problem: https://www.kqed.org/stateofhealth/120396/uranium-contaminat...

Re: Oklo, the Earth's Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor (2018)

#63

Post by [deleted] »

bobmcnamara wrote: post #45
Manuel_D wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.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-m…

[deleted]

Re: Oklo, the Earth's Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor (2018)

#64

Post by Manuel_D »

Terr_ wrote: post #60
roughly wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 k…

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

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.

Re: Oklo, the Earth's Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor (2018)

#66

Post by joemi »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #35
_Algernon_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We all have access to Grok and other AI models, and we will ask it if we want it's bullshit hallucinations. There is no point polluting HN with this trash.

Is it wrong?

That's a good question.

In order to know whether or not the AI was wrong, you'd need to do some research. Otherwise it's about as reliable as any "fact" some random person on the internet claims to be true.

Re: Oklo, the Earth's Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor (2018)

#67

Post by lukan »

Manuel_D wrote: post #56
AtlasBarfed wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I look forward to your revolutionary nuclear waste teleportation device.

Teleportation? You dig a tunnel underground, put the waste there, and fill the tunnel. It's been done before, it's not revolutionary engineering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...

The point was, you cannot ignore the risks of transportation, if you only have some safe spots to burry it.

And what you linked is still under construction. We don't know yet, if it really works safe long term, or if there will be future costs.

Re: Oklo, the Earth's Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor (2018)

#68

Post by Manuel_D »

lukan wrote: post #67
Manuel_D wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Teleportation? You dig a tunnel underground, put the waste there, and fill the tunnel. It's been done before, it's not revolutionary engineering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_re...

The point was, you cannot ignore the risks of transportation, if you only have some safe spots to burry it. And what you linked is still under construction. We don't know yet, if it really works safe long term, or if there will be future costs.

Finland has two other disposal sites in operation since the 90s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository

Re: Oklo, the Earth's Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor (2018)

#69

Post by recursivecaveat »

glompers wrote: post #48
joe_the_user wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree that nuclear waste can be disposed of safely under good conditions[1]. But I think a fallacy to claim that natural phenomena should inherently be considered "environmentally safe" in human terms. There are coal seam fires that have been going on for centuries and the pollution of these is just as bad as the pollution generated by human created coal mine fires (and that's truly awful, a significant so…

> There are coal seam fires that have been going on for centuries and the pollution of these is just as bad as the pollution generated by human created coal mine fires (and that's truly awful, a significant source of carbon pollution). Has CO2 fire suppression been unsuccessfully attempted in these seams? Since nobody is underground and we know how to inject CO2 into underground deposits at various pressures, it seem…

Apparently in mines they are sometimes extinguished with nitrogen. For less contained ones, injecting water or mud, while trying to seal off the ground with impermeable clay to halt oxygen and hopefully choke the fumes. Their scope can be huge though, and they generate a lot of energy which can cause subsidence to open up new passages. The Centralia fire in the US is apparently 15km².

Re: Oklo, the Earth's Two-billion-year-old only Known Natural Nuclear Reactor (2018)

#70

Post by sliken »

krunck wrote: post #26
legitster wrote: post #25

Richard Rhodes brought this up in an interview. He made it a point for critics who say nuclear waste can't be safely disposed of through burial. Well, we have pretty good natural evidence that nuclear fission products can remain buried and undisturbed for a pretty long time!

This is nonsense. Yep, after 2 billion years this thing is now safe to touch. But that had nothing to do with it's burial. We at least have pretty good evidence that nuclear fission products can be exposed to groundwater/hydrothermal fluids for a pretty long time.

Not sure I'd call it safe to touch. Getting with 5cm for an hour gives you as much radiation as a 8 hour flight. I wouldn't want touch it, make jewelry from it, or any substantial near promity. Not to mention if it was "only" a billion years ago it would be MUCH MUCH worse.
Post reply on HN