PowerSwitch Main Page
PowerSwitch
The UK's Peak Oil Discussion Forum & Community
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Cumbria County Council rejects waste depository
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:02 pm    Post subject: Cumbria County Council rejects waste depository Reply with quote

http://news.sky.com/story/1045037/cumbria-votes-against-nuclear-waste-site
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13958
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There were three voted for it. Laughing
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Totally_Baffled



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2824
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Someone educate me here.

The only "solution" to the UK's nuclear waste problem is long term storage (are there other options?)

In which case, someone is going to end up living near a nuclear waste storage facility? Indeed the waste will remain mainly at sellafield until if and when a site is found?

I know, I know, the answer ideally would have been not to generate the waste in the first place, but its here - we have to deal with it, so where do we put it? (that nobody would object to?)

Buggered if I know! lol Very Happy
_________________
TB

Peak oil? ahhh smeg..... Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Snail



Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 693

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm glad this was turned down.

Maybe North Africa? Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13958
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Maybe nuclear supporters could host small containers of waste in their homes?
_________________
"Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fụck the Buddhists" - Bjork
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12441
Location: York

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 7:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cumbria has inappropriate rocks. They move about. Cornwall and Aberdeen have Granite, which is better.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PS_RalphW



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 5248
Location: Cambridge

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Agreed that deep burial is the only real option for the nuclear waste we have generated already. The solution for nuclear power stations we are planning now is not to build them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7588

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the above ground nuclear waste issue is the largest nuclear problem we have. The top priority needs to be to get it deep underground - before we lose the ability of securely manage it.

Such a deep underground facility is going to take a long, long time to complete and we might not have very long. For this reason I think this is a mistake. Nowhere is perfect and I expect Cumbria is 'good enough'.

For me we should be building 'good enough' now, so we've got a chance of getting this stuff deep underground soon. Adding an additional delay of many years (which would be case if we went back to square one and looked at Cornwall and Aberdeen) could be a fatal mistake. Not a risk I'm willing to take given my expectations for grid security over the next couple of decades.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
Cumbria has inappropriate rocks. They move about. Cornwall and Aberdeen have Granite, which is better.


Yes, Cumbrian geology is all too itsy-bitsy - you want a big, big lump of granite. I would think it might be best to pay a lot of money to Finland and ask them to share their big hole (if they've any sense, and they probably have, they'll say no.) Failing that, Aberdeenshire might do. The Lewisian gneiss of north-west Scotland might work too - it's like granite but with stripes, rather than spots. It's been there for 3 000 000 000 years so should have settled down by now.

Delay is not necessary and certainly not wanted. But the Cumbria choice looks too much like political expediency (which backfired today) rather than geological expediency. Many folk have been saying this for a very long time.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Snail



Joined: 14 Apr 2011
Posts: 693

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Spent some time earlier trying to find out what other countries plans were. France, usa, japan etc.

And apart from Finland (&sweden+france to lesser degree), nobody else seems to have a definite plan or location to store this stuff. Seems to mostly be: store it above ground in an intermediary place, and hope the future will provide.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 8:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Finland seems to be the only country with a half credible policy, as seen in the brilliant film 'Into Eternity'.

Back to Cumbria and for those who think yesterday's decision was wrong, this is a good paragraph:
Quote:
The three councils deferred a decision in October because of unease over a guaranteed right to withdraw right up until construction work started, and to look at alternative disposal methods. Evidence given by Prof Stuart Haszeldine (Haszeldine), a geologist at the University of Edinburgh, played an important part in raising concern. He said: "This has been a very short-sighted policy, run by driving local councils into volunteering for the wrong reasons: financial inducements. A lot of information is being suppressed in the process to entice councils into accepting technically flawed sites.

He recalled how a 400m examination of a site chosen close to Sellafield in the 1980s and 1990s was eventually abandoned due to the highly complex and fractured nature of the geology. He said: "I am very concerned we are heading into a cul-de-sac as before. Ultimately, do we believe in evidence-based policy or political opportunism to exploit communities with limited economic opportunities?" Deep geological disposal was the best long-term solution for nuclear waste, but only if the site is suitable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/30/cumbria-rejects-underground-nuclear-storage
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12441
Location: York

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you, the Good Prof.

The only plan I'd personally be happy with is the one outlined by Prof Fergus Gibb of Sheffield: deep burial 4 km down in granite, which fuses/vitrifies in the heat produced by the waste. It's then practically impossible to dislodge by all but the most determined (and energy-rich) possible future civilisation.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
The Price of Time
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7588

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2013 11:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RenewableCandy wrote:
Thank you, the Good Prof.

The only plan I'd personally be happy with is the one outlined by Prof Fergus Gibb of Sheffield: deep burial 4 km down in granite, which fuses/vitrifies in the heat produced by the waste. It's then practically impossible to dislodge by all but the most determined (and energy-rich) possible future civilisation.


If that takes 50 years or doesn't happen at all, it is a far worse plan than one that puts the stuff a few hundred meters underground in a decade or two.

Leaving this stuff above ground, under active cooling is a serious risk - a far larger risk in my opinion than having it under several hundred meters of Cumbria's rock.

It may not the geologically perfect - but in my opinion political reality and timescales are more important. This is a case where it's critical that we don't allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

The worse case scenario here isn't leakage decades or hundreds of years from now - it's a prolonged backout a decade from now and the whole lot going up in smoke. That's the risk we need to mitigate.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Filter Feeder



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

West Cumbria has mass unemployment and are not at all squeamish about the nuclear industry. It employs a lot of people already. But any plan to put a massive nuclear waste dump under the Irish Sea is just too stupid to contemplate. The geology is completely wrong.

I suspect they'll be taking a long hard look at Caithness
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think the plan was for under the Irish Sea. Prime site was actually within the National Park. (But as you say, the geology is not ideal.)
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group