Awesome Nuclear Power - The Best For Economic Development?

[rainbow]

http://thorenergy.no/about-thor-energy/

[Svartalf]

Deep underground disposal, in a geologically stable area, designed by competent engineers should do the job...

I'm in agreement, but try implementing that in Japan...

[cronus]

Deep underground disposal, in a geologically stable area, designed by competent engineers should do the job...

I'm in agreement, but try implementing that in Japan...

Dispose of waste in areas away from tectonic plates. Cumbria for instance.

[Svartalf]

Store Japanese nuclear waste in Cumbria, makes for an interestic diplomatic and logistical conundrum...

[cronus]

Store Japanese nuclear waste in Cumbria, makes for an interestic diplomatic and logistical conundrum...

With the Arctic melting it's a three or four day sail on a fast gold carrier sort of ship.

[Svartalf]

and make it travel through the Northeast passage and Russian waters? no way.

[cronus]

and make it travel through the Northeast passage and Russian waters? no way.

Russians are not going to steal it. They have a large stock of their own already.

[Hermit]

The "best" option for disposing nuclear waste is to bury it deep underground in the most sparsely populated geologically most stable area that can be found. That would be somewhere out back in South Australia. Maralinga comes to mind. It lies within the 122,188 square kilometre region called Woomera, and is already a prohibited area for defence reasons. The UK used it to test its atom bombs, exploding seven of them there between 1956 and 1963.





It'll still cost many billions of dollars, and there's always the NIMBY problem, but it is the best currently doable solution.

[Alan B]

The 100,000 years I mentioned above could be a bit optimistic. It is generally assumed that radioactive waste will be 'safe' after ten 'half-lives'.
One of the waste products, Plutonium-239, for example, has a ‘half-life’ of 24,110 years. It will take ten ‘half-lives’ (241,100 years) to become ‘safe’. That's an awful long time in human terms.
There is no guarantee that if we are still around we will still have the technology or knowledge to maintain the waste dump.

[rainbow]

The 100,000 years I mentioned above could be a bit optimistic. It is generally assumed that radioactive waste will be 'safe' after ten 'half-lives'.
One of the waste products, Plutonium-239, for example, has a ‘half-life’ of 24,110 years. It will take ten ‘half-lives’ (241,100 years) to become ‘safe’. That's an awful long time in human terms.
There is no guarantee that if we are still around we will still have the technology or knowledge to maintain the waste dump.

So we will all be dead by then, why worry?

[Brian Peacock]

Deep underground disposal, in a geologically stable area, designed by competent engineers should do the job...

No geologist will guarantee the geological stability of anywhere on the planet for the next 12 months, let alone the next 100,000 years.

[JimC]

Deep underground disposal, in a geologically stable area, designed by competent engineers should do the job...

No geologist will guarantee the geological stability of anywhere on the planet for the next 12 months, let alone the next 100,000 years.

Not really. There are geological strata with very long histories of no significant history of seismic activity. Of course, you need it to not be in any form of aquifer. If deep enough shafts are made, then, as each one is filled, sealed with kilotons of rock and concrete, the chances of future earthlings being harmed is very, very remote. People need to also understand that the activity of high level waste (spent fuel rods) declines very, very steeply - in fact, spent fuel rods (or their remains after re-processing, in some countries) spend several years in containment facilities under water (an excellent shield against radiation, with the additional benefit of dealing well with the waste heat), where their activity is significantly reduced from the initial ferocity. Sure, there is the 20,000 year half life of Plutonium, but the majority of the radioisotopes have much shorter half lives. The combined activity graph approximates a negative exponential curve, with steep initial declines.

[Alan B]

I don't think we need worry too much about the short term stuff as long as it's contained and treated properly. It doesn't need long term storage. It is the long half-life stuff that is of concern - even in small amounts it must be held in 'ultra secure' storage for millennia.

[pErvinalia]

Just leave it all lying about. We'll all be living on Mars in 100 years..

[Rum]

New offshore wind farm in my neck of the woods just opening. It is the largest in the world apparently and will provide power for 600,000 homes. Hopefully nuclear will only be needed at a backup in due course.

Here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-45424559