Olkiluoto geology

[Tero]

A famous Finnish conspiracy theorist and antinuclear activist, plus all around village idiot, Atro Laurila is finally on to something. He got a Swedish geologist to come and look at rock near Olkiluoto. This is to be the nuclear waste storage site. It has had lots of earthquake activity since the last ice age.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Kansas would make a good depository. Nothing's moved there since the Inland Sea receded.

[Tero]

Yeah, even the ground water will be gone soon.

[MiM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner

[Jason]

Have they collapsed on the idea of shooting barrels into orbit using a mile-long magnetic rail gun then?

[Tero]

MiM, do you know the real data on Olkiluoto geology? Is it published?

[MiM]

I don't know how many thousand pages . It's all on Posivas website

I'm not a geologist, and I am afraid I cannot easily help you to find one good short report. What I can tell you, is that that data is reviewed by the national authority (STUK), with the aid of subcontracted international experts. So even if those reports ara made or commisioned by Posiva, they are at least under scrutiny.

[Tero]

Posiva has addressed gases and fracture zones

Gas compositions correspond well with the stratification of redox conditions in hydrogeochemical system at Olkiluoto. Methane, the most abundant gas in deep saline groundwater (below 300 m) at Olkiluoto seems to have two primary sources: thermal abiogenic hydrocarbons (probably extremely old) dominate in the deepest parts of sampled groundwaters whereas the fraction of bacterial methane increases steadily with decreasing depth and CH4 content. In SO4-rich groundwater above 300 m depth only traces of hydrocarbons are observed, which corresponds well with the theory of instability between dissolved CH4 and SO4 in a common system producing dissolved sulphide when, for instance sulphate reducing bacteria are present.

The DFN models represent the fault and fracture system in the planned repository volume at Olkiluoto. In particular, they represent the hydrogeologically significant features. The types of hydrogeological features included in the models are:
Major Fracture Zones (MFZs)
Local Fracture Zones (LFZs) and associated water conducting features (LFZ-WCFs)
Water Conducting Features in the background rock (BR-WCFs).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yeah, even the ground water will be gone soon.

We haven't mowed our lawn in two months.

[Tero]

The same sonspiracy theorist also promotes beta flare over reactors. He can't write in English well, so I am linking a second theorist here:
http://www.styrge.com/Betaflare.html
They claim it is escaping neutrons.

Ideas, MiM?

[Blind groper]

Nuclear waste is one of the biggest bogeymen of our time. It is a minimal problem, but activists have exaggerated it's importance beyond recognition. In terms of total waste produced, it is one of the smallest waste streams of all. In terms of disposal, it has been dumped in the past under extraordinarily careless and irresponsible conditions, and so far, no measurable harm to ecosystems or to human health has been measured.

In the 1950's and 1960's, the USA packaged it in steel drums and dropped them willy nilly into the ocean. We know damn well that those drums corroded into non existence decades ago, to release the waste into the broad oceans. So far, no harm of any kind has been measured from that.

The Soviets had a pipeline into the Arctic Ocean. They dissolved nuclear waste in strong acid, and pumped it (with lots of diluting water) down the pipeline. Studies have since been done on Arctic Ocean ecology, and no harm measured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disp ... tive_waste

We also know that coal ash contains radioactive isotopes, and the total tonnage of such isotopes produced each year exceeds that of nuclear waste substantially.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lear-waste
The coal ash is simply disposed of in land fill. Why can we not dilute the radioisotopes from nuclear power plants with inert powder like dry clay, and dispose of it in the same way? There is less of it, after all.

The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste is a slight variation on what the Soviets did. Simply dissolve it in strong acid, and pump it, with lots of dilution water, into some of the perpetually moving ocean currents. It will then be diluted to harmlessness. There is already 50 million tonnes of radioactive isotope Uranium 235 dissolved in the ocean, and a few thousand tonnes more radioisotope will make no difference whatever.

All life on Earth is adapted to a level of background radioactivity. It averages less than 3 millisieverts per year. However, some parts of India (with hydrothermal waters) have a background level 100 times that, and the local inhabitants have no health problems that can be measured. The worst nuclear waste can do, if it is disposed of as I suggested, is to raise the background level by an amount that is a tiny fraction of that.

[Azathoth]

Greenland is a big fuck off lump of nothing. they could bury shitloads in its interior and nothing would ever happen

[Blind groper]

Even easier than that, Eichmann.

Both Australia and Southern Africa have bloody great holes in the middle of the desert, where they once had deep open cast mines, where there is no water, no people, and no geological activity for massive distances in all directions. Just dump it in there, and not even have to dig a hole!

[MiM]

Nuclear waste is one of the biggest bogeymen of our time. It is a minimal problem, but activists have exaggerated it's importance beyond recognition. In terms of total waste produced, it is one of the smallest waste streams of all. In terms of disposal, it has been dumped in the past under extraordinarily careless and irresponsible conditions, and so far, no measurable harm to ecosystems or to human health has been measured.

In the 1950's and 1960's, the USA packaged it in steel drums and dropped them willy nilly into the ocean. We know damn well that those drums corroded into non existence decades ago, to release the waste into the broad oceans. So far, no harm of any kind has been measured from that.

The Soviets had a pipeline into the Arctic Ocean. They dissolved nuclear waste in strong acid, and pumped it (with lots of diluting water) down the pipeline. Studies have since been done on Arctic Ocean ecology, and no harm measured.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disp ... tive_waste

We also know that coal ash contains radioactive isotopes, and the total tonnage of such isotopes produced each year exceeds that of nuclear waste substantially.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lear-waste
The coal ash is simply disposed of in land fill. Why can we not dilute the radioisotopes from nuclear power plants with inert powder like dry clay, and dispose of it in the same way? There is less of it, after all.

The easiest way to get rid of nuclear waste is a slight variation on what the Soviets did. Simply dissolve it in strong acid, and pump it, with lots of dilution water, into some of the perpetually moving ocean currents. It will then be diluted to harmlessness. There is already 50 million tonnes of radioactive isotope Uranium 235 dissolved in the ocean, and a few thousand tonnes more radioisotope will make no difference whatever.

All life on Earth is adapted to a level of background radioactivity. It averages less than 3 millisieverts per year. However, some parts of India (with hydrothermal waters) have a background level 100 times that, and the local inhabitants have no health problems that can be measured. The worst nuclear waste can do, if it is disposed of as I suggested, is to raise the background level by an amount that is a tiny fraction of that.

Hmm, Yes, and definitely NO. I agree that the problem with nuclear waste is exaggerated and during normal operation a nuclear power plant releases miniscule amounts of radioactivity into the environment, compared to coal combustion, but spent nuclear fuel really includes far more radioactivity than fly ash, and it has to be dealt with in a responsible manner, which is absolutely possible. Read the editors note in the article you reference.

Another interesting comparison, is how many deaths can be attributed to the use of different energy sources. Hundreds die in coal mines and hundreds of thousands are estimated to die from "coal smog", yearly. The Banqiao hydropower water dam that broke in China killed about 200 000 in a single giant sweep. Chernobyl and Fukushima are really insignificant in this comparison.

[Blind groper]

spent nuclear fuel really includes far more radioactivity than fly ash, and it has to be dealt with in a responsible manner, which is absolutely possible.

Far more radioactivity in terms of concentration, not in total tonnage of radioisotopes. For each gigawatt of electricity produced, coal burning power stations generate more tonnes of radioisotopes in their waste than the equivalent from a nuclear power station. It is just that the coal ash dilutes the radioisotopes massively. That is why I suggested diluting nuclear waste in dry clay. Not a smart move, really, but it illustrates the point that nuclear power does not really produce terribly much waste.

Any waste should be disposed of in a responsible manner. Is burying coal ash in landfill responsible?

Nuclear power is, as you suggested, one of the safest forms of generating electricity. Chernobyl and Fukushima between them killed or will kill somewhere between 4,000 and 30,000 people, depending on which estimate you believe. However, the best measure of safety is numbers of deaths per terawatt year of electricity produced. On that basis, believe it or not, domestic solar cells are the most dangerous. That is because they produce very little power, but a number of people have been killed by falling off ladders while installing solar panels.