5 ms·

Yes, and they as enough still others believe that you don't solve one huge problem by going back to another huge problem.

• fsloth 5y ago
  Finland has researched and invested quite a lot in the ability to dispose of the nuclear waste in a way it's safe underground for the next 100 000 years. The research includes extensive geological surveys and every possible simulation you can run on a cave system. Beats hands down the option which would be to burn fossil fuels and let the planet enjoy the negative externalities (CO2). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repo... https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/deep-time-reckoning https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/deep-time-reckoning
  • himinlomax 5y ago
    There's a simpler solution for disposing (not storing) final nuclear waste: deep core drilling. You drill a 1m round hole 2km+ deep and dump shit there and fill back up. Unlike caves, natural or otherwise, on a properly selected site there is no possibility of things coming back up in millions of years. It's expensive, but not that expensive compared to the energy hitherto produced by the waste involved and eminently doable as it uses tech from the oil industry. The main reason we don't do that is that most of the waste can be expected to be further used with future reactors.
    • fsloth 5y ago
      Wouldn't that risk contaminating the water table?
      • himinlomax 5y ago
        Certainly not 2km down. Water table extends a few hundred meters at most.