Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: The Spanish Grid Drop-out - recently released information.
Date: Thu, 15 May 2025 15:37:54 +0200
Lines: 156
Message-ID: <ia7hflxtq3.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
References: <vvnvto$3kd3i$1@dont-email.me> <vvo0k4$3kq8j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvo5gv$3lr47$1@dont-email.me> <rf8v1klb6d9djefqfr2e2g8f9k3lgotka2@4ax.com>
 <qRTTP.120685$vK4b.43405@fx09.ams4>
 <qtb42kdu0hi53rdatftund6ho5s0hpi0o3@4ax.com> <vvuhj7$1it85$1@dont-email.me>
 <b6lbflxg2q.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <sbi62kp9g79sdbjhj1f64gm29r93v4r5qu@4ax.com> <vvvr5k$1tce4$1@dont-email.me>
 <7kmcflxsfb.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <3lj92kth9m1cjjib8peq04tta6fecer0bv@4ax.com>
 <ed6fflx9t.ln2@Telcontar.valinor>
 <023a2k1v735395t0crgdfq36acujgn24gq@4ax.com>
 <b14ed169-8a1d-5a70-4019-dd6db34285ad@electrooptical.net>
 <1004nmp$34c0m$2@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net MHuorQotsrNOZ2qdPkP7SgmMZQ12ve46NW8X550Wi1ZJXxJOXR
X-Orig-Path: Telcontar.valinor!not-for-mail
Cancel-Lock: sha1:tLsuhZeqaHXyFWzAf48ZKE1cUM8= sha256:oLzp9wyJaAos+a50UtV0FUhiHeMkz/C7m0v/9lT7jq4=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: es-ES, en-CA
In-Reply-To: <1004nmp$34c0m$2@dont-email.me>

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.