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
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    PowerSwitch Forum Index -> Nuclear Power
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
clv101
Site Admin


Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 7453

PostPosted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
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.
If the answer had been yes in Cumbria - I expect bulldozers could have started work this year. No other site is within years of a planning application even being submitted as far as I'm aware.

biffvernon wrote:
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.

Local politics is critical! Local politics represents years maybe decades of delay. In my opinion, it should be deep underground ASAP - that makes it a political problem, who will accept it the soonest? The government was betting on Cumbria. They lost the bet and a big problem just became a whole lot bigger - for all of us. That's why I see nothing to be please about in this decision.
_________________
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: Thu Feb 14, 2013 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing to be pleased about is that it basically scuppers plans to build more (German or French) nuclear reactors.

Nice analysis of the NIREX geology issue I quoted earlier here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2013/jan/30/nuclear-waste-cumbria-copeland-allerdale
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kenneal - lagger
Site Admin


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 9493
Location: Newbury, Berkshire

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Will Scotland want English nuclear waste as they've decided to go nuke free?
_________________
BLOG

"When the last tree is cut down, and the last river has been poisoned, and the last fish has been caught, Only then will you find out that you cannot eat money". --The Cree Indians
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Totally_Baffled



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2824
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 8:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kenneal - lagger wrote:
Will Scotland want English nuclear waste as they've decided to go nuke free?


+1

Getting the Scots to take nuclear waste will be nigh on impossible.
_________________
TB

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



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12355
Location: York

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Filter Feeder wrote:
One thing to be pleased about is that it basically scuppers plans to build more (German or French) nuclear reactors.

This is what I was thinking too. It kind-of keeps the issue of waste up there in front of people's faces. Of course, if you're a fast crash wallah then I can see it'd be very worrying. I personally think we're more in for a slow deliquescence than a fast crash, such that the obscene amounts of money needed will still be able to be found, or printed, ten years hence.
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l’impossible.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Filter Feeder



Joined: 14 Sep 2008
Posts: 97

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a fast crash scenario, it's the reactors you need to worry about...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
biffvernon



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 18555
Location: Lincolnshire

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Totally_Baffled wrote:

Getting the Scots to take nuclear waste will be nigh on impossible.
Torness, Hunterston?
_________________
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: 7453

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Filter Feeder wrote:
In a fast crash scenario, it's the reactors you need to worry about...

I'm not so sure - there's a lot more potential radiation in the decades worth of waste in cooling pools than in the reactors. The material in the reactors, whilst not passively safe, is still in fairly robust steel and concrete containment vessels. For the all the failings at Fukushima, the reactor containment vessel was just about up to the job despite at least partial core meltdowns. The spent fuel sitting in the pools could have released a lot of radiation had ad hoc cooling been restored rapidly. That material was just under water - not strong steel/concrete containers like the reactor cores.
_________________
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: Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You're right that the automatic systems are pretty robust during Scram. But reactors are not designed to just sit like that for years, without power, and without further intensive intervention.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Totally_Baffled



Joined: 24 Nov 2005
Posts: 2824
Location: Hampshire

PostPosted: Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

biffvernon wrote:
Totally_Baffled wrote:

Getting the Scots to take nuclear waste will be nigh on impossible.
Torness, Hunterston?


Lol i missed out the word 'extra', - given that the Scots/SNP want to be nuke free. Also a storage facility of a permenant nature (which is what we are talking about here) is a different matter to the temporary storage in existing nuclear sites?

I am coming to the rapid conclusion that making coherant posts from a blackberry is very difficult! Smile
_________________
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: Sat Feb 16, 2013 12:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Talking of which, when are you guys going to get hip to Tapatalk?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RenewableCandy



Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 12355
Location: York

PostPosted: Fri Mar 22, 2013 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nukesters at DECC accuse Cumbria of "failing to understand the process" Shocked

Cumbria CC wrote:
They should take a leaf out of the Swedish and Finnish books, starting with the geology first and then finding a willing community.

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbria-council-hits-back-at-minister-s-accusation-over-dump-site-1.1043759?referrerPath=news
_________________
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l’impossible.
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
Page 3 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