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 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
emordnilap



Joined: 05 Sep 2007
Posts: 13918
Location: Houǝsʇlʎ' ᴉʇ,s ɹǝɐllʎ uoʇ ʍoɹʇɥ ʇɥǝ ǝɟɟoɹʇ' pou,ʇ ǝʌǝu qoʇɥǝɹ˙

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Filter Feeder wrote:
West Cumbria has mass unemployment and are not at all squeamish about the nuclear industry. It employs a lot of people already.


Hmmph. I've known three workers there who aren't from the area, so it wouldn't be surprising if the percentage of outsiders in the workforce is high.
_________________
"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
Filter Feeder



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

emordnilap wrote:
Filter Feeder wrote:
West Cumbria has mass unemployment and are not at all squeamish about the nuclear industry. It employs a lot of people already.


Hmmph. I've known three workers there who aren't from the area, so it wouldn't be surprising if the percentage of outsiders in the workforce is high.


A lot of the kids I went to school have worked there at one time or another - Sallafield is probably the biggest single employer in the area.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7572

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
...the geology is not ideal.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Under hundreds of metres of imperfect geology is immeasurably better than being under 6 inches of water when the lights go out.
_________________
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: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, but better geology exists in other parts of Britain and not in National Parks.

A short boat ride from Sellafield to Dalbeatie might be in order.


_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Filter Feeder



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about Lincolnshire? As good a place as any...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not a lot of granite in Lincolnshire - it's just layers of sedimentaries for a very long way down. Of course we might have fracking to look forward to.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7572

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
Yes, but better geology exists in other parts of Britain and not in National Parks.

A short boat ride from Sellafield to Dalbeatie might be in order.


Sure - I'm not saying the geology in Cumbria is ideal, nor that better rocks exist elsewhere.

What I'm saying is that this negative decision has extended the length of time - probably by at least a decade - before the nuclear waste is moved from being under six inches of water to being under hundreds of metres of rock.

Couple this delay to the current 'active' management requirements of the waste and my low confidence in grid reliability over multi-decade timescales and I see this decision as significantly increasing the chance the waste will go up in smoke.
_________________
PowerSwitch on Facebook | The Oil Drum | Twitter | Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Totally_Baffled



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2824
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chris - educate me here.

Currently this waste material is under 6 inches of water - is this for cooling old nuclear material/waste (spent rods?)

If the waste went under rock , would it still need to be in water to be cooled? Would that still require an electricity supply to circulate/cool? If the electricity goes out whilst the waste is under ground - what happens? Would it be a contained explosion?

Apologies if I am way off here or have misunderstood Shocked
_________________
TB

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



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

At least British spent fuel rods aren't stored on top of the reactors as they were at Fukushima, and several other places who still run the same design. The logic of it defies belief.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The idea of deep geological disposal is that the waste material is put in a very deep place in very strong, impermeable, unfractured rock. The entrance in then blocked with a tremendous amount of very strong, impermeable, unfractured concrete and the whole affair can then be utterly and completely forgotten with absolutely no human intervention for tens of thousands of years (plutonium-239, half-life 24,100 years).

Of course it begs questions about whether such a depository can be constructed which cannot be opened by inquisitive future civilisations that have no knowledge of the hazards within, or whether natural processes such as glaciers could expose the depository.

clv101 is right to be concerned about getting the stuff locked away now, while our economy can still cope, but I don't see that a change from Cumbria to Dumfries & Galloway should cause much delay. Some of us told them to do it this way many years ago and it's high time the government took geology more seriously than the convenience of local employment politics.
_________________
http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Filter Feeder wrote:
The logic of it defies belief.


The logic of it comes from the ability to get the rods out of the reactor and into the initial storage pond without ever, not even for a moment, lifting them out of the water. There's a continuous water tank connecting the reactor top to the storage pond.

It is, as we've seen, one of the inherent dangers in this sort of nuclear power station. Good job we are not going to build any more of them.
_________________
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 Feb 14, 2013 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
but I don't see that a change from Cumbria to Dumfries & Galloway should cause much delay. Some of us told them to do it this way many years ago and it's high time the government took geology more seriously than the convenience of local employment politics.


Nah. Civ is right. Get it in the ground asap (in cumbria). Surprised
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18552
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Snail wrote:
(in cumbria). Surprised

Why?
_________________
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 Feb 14, 2013 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I can't deny it. I'm a nimby in d&g! Embarassed
Laughing

I suppose it has to go somewhere tho.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Filter Feeder



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's not employment politics which made Cumbria the prime choice, it was the belief that this was the most likely site which would avoid NIMBYism. Plans to site a huge underground nuclear depository in West Cumbria have been circulating for more than 20 years. The NIREX plan was rejected in 1997, mostly on grounds of geology.

The rocks haven't changed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 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