[jeff744]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Most new designs require there be sufficient on-site storage for the waste. I guess they are pessimistic that the waste will ever be allowed to leave the site (due to the NIMBY folks). Which is absurd to me. How can it possible be safer than locked away in a mountain, or turned back into usable fuel?

But it doesn't require more land, that must make it safer even though there is nothing inside a mountain to contaminate but rock while the reactors are often right next to major water sources.

[Khar]

A major reason in my mind why this is even happening is because, if they do it this way, the radioactive materials won't have to be transported far for the Bruce facility, and it can be staffed with a readily available community of nuclear experts. In other words, they won't have to leave the Bruce facility for long, be transported on public roads or via the waters of Lake Huron, and will be largely contained within the facility. In the short- and long-term, it makes a lot more sense to reduce movement of radioactive goods to the lowest levels possible. In addition, the facility can take on both the Pickering and Darlington outputs, so regional outputs can be easily contained and retained in this facility rather than flying them across the continent and two countries. Given that the majority of the items being placed within will have comparatively short half-lives and will be below multiple levels of incredibly low-perm materials, aside from the essentially protections provided by the facility itself, public good is served just as well by keeping it here, if not more by having it move around.

If it was not for these considerations, pre-existing regulations provide for limiting such constructions within 16km of bodies of water like Lake Huron. Plus, Lake Huron is unique in that it is nearby rock which is some of the most stable in the world (indeed, the lack of mountains is because fault lines are not nearby), and has a very shallow water table (in contrast to Yucca, where they'd be storing the material between the surface and the water table). Nothing is getting through that layer of ancient rock save for what we shove down through via the facility, and the materials down there will actually help the process of allowing for radioactivity to slowly be removed from the material, since there is a low-perm level rather than a system that would concentrate the radiation further. The stuff being put in is already low-risk, and is actually handled and condensed before it is even sent; ie, it can be worked with in the right conditions. Besides which, given the facility already exists, a great deal of the risk is already present and accounted for, and will not be actively reduced by moving away from this plan.

Now, I'm originally from around Huron county (I spent a lot of time swimming in Lake Huron), so I'm not unattached to the area, and even I'll say that this makes a lot more sense than the alternatives, especially since it also means our ability to dispose of waste won't be wholly dependent on whether or not the United States is in a snit, or how regulations at the borders go or will be changed. Nuclear is currently one of the few high output forms of energy available to us; I'd prefer Bruce's waste stay up at Bruce, rather than be transported all the way until it eventually gets to Bumfucknowhere in the States. Aforementioned Bumfucknowhere is also currently being considered for high level nuclear waste instead, and the US (and Canada) design and keep those facilities very separate. Or, well, was, before Obama decided to scrap that plan, so it's effectively off the table. In cases of dealing with nuclear energy, it's better to have as little inter-government fiddling as possible, and to retain efficiency in the system. Any potential issues with political problems is removed and reduced the moment we keep waste disposal within our own borders. Given Michigan's response, it's a legitimate concern.

For me, the concerns ring similar to that of Thimerosol. "Do you really want to put Mercury in your blood?" "Do you really want to put nuclear waste near a lake?" It sounds scary, but isn't necessarily scary. The science is sound, the viability of the plan is fine, and it's far better than the current alternative, which is storing it on top of the surface. Yes, there are other alternatives, but none are as efficient, assured, and as safe as the one being proposed here. Those that have been offered have been shut down by local governments, like the Kincardine proposal. When you look at Canada, a lack of road access (for oversight, employees, and transport of goods), risk of earthquakes, leaves essentially the southern Canadian Shield and the southern portions of the prairie provinces. And in the south of the prairies, unfortunately, there are tornado risks. Factor in national parks, rock age and type, geological layering, distance from fault lines, distance from nuclear sites (9 are in Ontario, 2 are just across the border in Quebec), where local communities are, regional lashback from citizens, and so forth, and this position looks downright wonderful.

Keep in mind as well, that comparable structures now being made in the EU (look at recent discussions for Germany and France in particular) are not even half as far down (even the Yucca plan was going to be much more shallow for much more intense waste), and did not have nearly as much geological protection. Hell, the Finish facility is being built directly beneath one of their facilities next to the lake, inside granite. Ours is being built UNDER that layer, into argillaceous limestone underneath. The standards we are using is above and beyond what both the EU and the Americans used, and indeed, the one regulation this does not meet is one set by Michigan law (although technically it does since it'll connect to a pre-existing waste disposal site that won't be moving anyway) -- and I have a hard time believing that law was made on scientific grounds. My recommendation is always to consider the science before strictly agreeing with the legislation anyways, since the latter does't comform well to the former in many cases.

Now I'd love to see it moved elsewhere, and yeah, it's because of NIMBYism, but since I used to live within an hour of the Bruce plant (and currently live within a few hundred meters of Edmonton's research nuclear reactor) it's fair to say that'd be a weird double standard for me. If they can find a suitable place to construct the facility that can offset the lost benefits of keeping it at Bruce, I say go for it. But I have a hard time believing they will be able to find one, and I don't think the risk will be acceptably mitigated by doing so. Just imo.

My father will be strangely proud to hear that I get permeability and porosity, he's waaaaay too happy being a geologist.

EDIT: Explained the Thimerosol thing more, instead of making this sound like a conspiracy. Sorry to anyone offended between post and edit.

[Alta_redneck]

Hey, we have some big holes out here we can throw it in, we've already fucked up the environment and polluted the river so it shouldn't be a big deal.

[Brenda]

Send it to a prison full of child molesters. They can wear it inside out, for all I care. Win-win.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Nahhh, you just saw an opportunity for an irrelevant drive-by swipe at environmentalists. It was typically conservative of you.

Excuse me? Who else do you think is responsible for the excessive fear and mistrust of nuclear energy in North America and Europe?

It's not exactly irrelevant if the environmental movement are primarily responsible for such fear and loathing of a type of energy that can meet our short-to-mid term demands for electricity.

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Did you miss the part where they were talking about it being for used protective clothing, mops, towels and stuff like that, that was used to clean up small spills?
NOT spent fuel rods.

I actually did. My bad.

[Lemmy]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Excuse me? Who else do you think is responsible for the excessive fear and mistrust of nuclear energy in North America and Europe?

It's not exactly irrelevant if the environmental movement are primarily responsible for such fear and loathing of a type of energy that can meet our short-to-mid term demands for electricity.

Like the excessive fear and mistrust of nuclear energy in Japan? It'd be nice if conservatives were actually conservative when it came to resources. Odd hypocricy really.

[commanderkai]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Like the excessive fear and mistrust of nuclear energy in Japan? It'd be nice if conservatives were actually conservative when it came to resources. Odd hypocricy really.

Now I'm going to have to wonder what you're talking about, especially with the "conservative when it came to resources" remark?

Up until the 2011 tsunami, Japan's strategic energy policy was focused on nuclear power (makes sense, considering Japan is resource poor, especially in terms of energy resources). This changed with the Fukuishima tragedy, as they mothballed their nuclear power facilities, with only two of their reactors being online after 2 years. So, are you talking about their strategic energy policy pre-2011, or spike in fear and concern over nuclear energy after 2011?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Most new designs require there be sufficient on-site storage for the waste. I guess they are pessimistic that the waste will ever be allowed to leave the site (due to the NIMBY folks). Which is absurd to me. How can it possible be safer than locked away in a mountain, or turned back into usable fuel?

So uh, what exactly is the procedure for turning used protective clothing, mops and towels into usable fuel?

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Lemmy Lemmy:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Excuse me? Who else do you think is responsible for the excessive fear and mistrust of nuclear energy in North America and Europe?

It's not exactly irrelevant if the environmental movement are primarily responsible for such fear and loathing of a type of energy that can meet our short-to-mid term demands for electricity.

Like the excessive fear and mistrust of nuclear energy in Japan? It'd be nice if conservatives were actually conservative when it came to resources. Odd hypocricy really.

The fear in Germany is almost amusing. I know it's usually a bad idea to ask these kinds of questions but, how likely is it that a German NPP would be hit by an earthquake AND an ensuing tsunami in a devastating one-two punch?

[martin14]

Lemmy Lemmy:

Like the excessive fear and mistrust of nuclear energy in Japan?

Letting the Japanese build NPPs in an earthquake / tsunami zone was

dumb, dumb, dumb, right from the beginning. It should never have been approved.


We have had safe, productive nuclear power for 50 years now,
even with the idiot Japs.

One case of poor planning and no safety should not be held up
as 'every NPP is like this.'

[martin14]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Lemmy Lemmy:

commanderkai commanderkai:

Excuse me? Who else do you think is responsible for the excessive fear and mistrust of nuclear energy in North America and Europe?

It's not exactly irrelevant if the environmental movement are primarily responsible for such fear and loathing of a type of energy that can meet our short-to-mid term demands for electricity.

Like the excessive fear and mistrust of nuclear energy in Japan? It'd be nice if conservatives were actually conservative when it came to resources. Odd hypocricy really.

The fear in Germany is almost amusing. I know it's usually a bad idea to ask these kinds of questions but, how likely is it that a German NPP would be hit by an earthquake AND an ensuing tsunami in a devastating one-two punch?

The Germans are complete nimrods.

They try to close the NPPs, then fire up the coal plants, or try with gas.

Russian gas, btw.. looks nice, but the foreign policy.....

Well they'll be cutting their trees down soon enough.


Never mind the French plants just keep trucking along, so in reality it changes not much.

[martin14]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Most new designs require there be sufficient on-site storage for the waste. I guess they are pessimistic that the waste will ever be allowed to leave the site (due to the NIMBY folks). Which is absurd to me. How can it possible be safer than locked away in a mountain, or turned back into usable fuel?

So uh, what exactly is the procedure for turning used protective clothing, mops and towels into usable fuel?

Wrap cats in it, then feed them to Harper.

[commanderkai]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The fear in Germany is almost amusing. I know it's usually a bad idea to ask these kinds of questions but, how likely is it that a German NPP would be hit by an earthquake AND an ensuing tsunami in a devastating one-two punch?

Doomsday was around the corner with the Mayan Apocalypse, and with all of the disaster movies popping up, they couldn't be too sure

[Brenda]

$1:

Russian gas, btw..

Dutch gas, sold and pipelined to Russia, and then bought back for less and piped back

[PublicAnimalNo9]

martin14 martin14:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

The Germans are complete nimrods.

They try to close the NPPs, then fire up the coal plants, or try with gas.

Russian gas, btw.. looks nice, but the foreign policy.....

Well they'll be cutting their trees down soon enough.


Never mind the French plants just keep trucking along, so in reality it changes not much.

It's times like this I wish Eureka were still here to point and laugh at after his rants about how Germany is way ahead of us in emissions free energy generation.