On 2025-05-15 14:46, Jeroen Belleman wrote:
On 5/15/25 01:38, Phil Hobbs wrote:
On 2025-05-14 17:37, john larkin wrote:
On Wed, 14 May 2025 21:10:06 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
On 2025-05-14 19:19, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 22:28:23 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
On 2025-05-13 18:14, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 13/05/2025 11:48 pm, john larkin wrote:
On Tue, 13 May 2025 12:57:47 +0200, "Carlos E.R."
<robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>
>
Nukes are great, but not if you tear them down.
>
Nukes are remarkably expensive, and depressingly inflexible. Radiation
damage to the structure means that you do have to tear them down after a
few decades of use, and the radioactive waste starts off very
radioactive, and the longer-lived isotopes have to be managed for a few
hundred thousand years.
>
And the investors building the stations do not consider the cost of
managing the waste for centuries. They leave that part to the
government. In Spain, we don't have any long term nuclear waste storage.
I think we rent storage in France, so the waste has to be transported
there. We have some storage at each station, a large water pool.
>
The best thing to do with used fuel rods is reprocess them into more
fuel.
>
Something that is expensive and not every country can do.
>
A couple of very remote places in the world could do that. And we'd
get lots of fun isotopes too. Can't leave hot rods in a zillion pools
forever.
>
>
When that's not feasible, dig a deep hole and dump it in. Or drop
barrels of junk into an ocean subduction zone.
>
That's simply wrong.
>
It's irrational to store nuclear waste locally. Nuke policy is mostly
fear driven. And nukes are unpopular in some quarters by people who
really don't want us to have affordable, safe energy.
>
I have a very rational and studied fear of nuclear power.
>
Why? It's very safe when done carefully.
>
The little modular reactors sound cool.
>
Putting used nuclear fuel someplace deepish underground is important. While a nuclear war would be very very bad, surface storage makes it much, much worse.
[...]
Yes! Now convince the populace and the politicians.
Jeroen Belleman
<
https://chatgpt.com/>
What are the pros and cons of storing nuclear waste deep underground?
Storing nuclear waste deep underground—typically referred to as **deep geological disposal**—is one of the most researched and widely supported long-term strategies for managing high-level radioactive waste. Here are the **key pros and cons**:
---
## ✅ **Pros of Deep Underground Nuclear Waste Storage**
### 1. **Long-term isolation from biosphere**
* **Goal**: Prevent radioactive materials from reaching the environment for thousands to millions of years.
* **How**: Waste is stored in stable geological formations (e.g., granite, clay, salt beds) that have been geologically stable for millennia.
### 2. **Passive safety**
* No need for constant human oversight or mechanical systems to maintain safety, reducing reliance on future generations.
### 3. **Security from surface threats**
* Underground storage is less vulnerable to:
* Natural disasters (e.g., earthquakes, wildfires, flooding)
* Terrorist attacks or sabotage
* Accidental human intrusion
### 4. **Scientific consensus**
* Supported by decades of scientific research and endorsed by many international bodies (e.g., IAEA, NEA) as a viable long-term solution.
### 5. **Reduces surface-level storage**
* Frees up surface storage space currently used at nuclear power plants, which are not ideal for long-term containment.
---
## ❌ **Cons of Deep Underground Nuclear Waste Storage**
### 1. **High initial cost and complexity**
* Requires extensive geological surveys, tunneling, engineering, and long-term planning.
* Projects often cost billions and take decades to develop (e.g., Yucca Mountain, Onkalo).
### 2. **Difficult to retrieve waste**
* Once buried, accessing the waste for future reprocessing or unforeseen needs becomes very hard or impossible.
### 3. **Political and public opposition**
* Local communities often resist becoming host sites due to safety concerns and stigma (“Not In My Backyard”).
* Political gridlock can stall or cancel projects despite technical feasibility.
### 4. **Long approval and construction timelines**
* Even if technically sound, these projects can take 30–50 years from planning to operation.
* Example: Finland’s **Onkalo repository** is the world’s first operational deep geological repository, and it took over 40 years to develop.
### 5. **Uncertain future conditions**
* Predicting geological and environmental stability over hundreds of thousands of years involves uncertainties, especially regarding climate change or seismic activity.
---
## Summary Table
| Factor | Pros | Cons |
| --------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------- |
| Environmental Impact | Isolates waste from biosphere long-term | Hard to predict geologic changes over millennia |
| Safety | Passive safety, less risk of accidents or attacks | Retrieval is difficult if needed |
| Economic | Long-term cost savings via passive design | Very high upfront costs |
| Social/Political | Can reduce opposition with proper planning | Strong public and political resistance in many areas |
| Technical Feasibility | Based on decades of research and trials | Implementation and oversight are complex |
---
Let me know if you'd like a visual diagram or case studies (e.g., Finland’s Onkalo or the Yucca Mountain project in the U.S.).
-- Cheers, Carlos.
The Spanish Grid Drop-out - recently released information.
Re: The Spanish Grid Drop-out - recently released information.
