Olkiluoto geology

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51335
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Olkiluoto geology

Post by Tero » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:19 am

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.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jul 24, 2012 12:44 pm

Kansas would make a good depository. Nothing's moved there since the Inland Sea receded.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51335
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Tero » Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:54 pm

Yeah, even the ground water will be gone soon.

User avatar
MiM
Man In The Middle
Posts: 5459
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by MiM » Tue Jul 24, 2012 4:14 pm

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - Richard Feynman

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Jason » Tue Jul 24, 2012 6:10 pm

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

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51335
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Tero » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:40 pm

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

User avatar
MiM
Man In The Middle
Posts: 5459
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by MiM » Tue Jul 24, 2012 7:58 pm

I don't know how many thousand pages :dunno:. 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.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - Richard Feynman

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51335
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Tero » Tue Jul 24, 2012 10:44 pm

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).

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jul 24, 2012 11:47 pm

Tero wrote:Yeah, even the ground water will be gone soon.
We haven't mowed our lawn in two months.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Tero
Just saying
Posts: 51335
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:50 pm
About me: 15-32-25
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Tero » Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:55 pm

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?

User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Blind groper » Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:33 pm

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.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.

User avatar
Azathoth
blind idiot god
blind idiot god
Posts: 9418
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 11:31 pm
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Azathoth » Sat Oct 13, 2012 10:51 pm

Greenland is a big fuck off lump of nothing. they could bury shitloads in its interior and nothing would ever happen
Outside the ordered universe is that amorphous blight of nethermost confusion which blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity—the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, and who gnaws hungrily in inconceivable, unlighted chambers beyond time and space amidst the muffled, maddening beating of vile drums and the thin monotonous whine of accursed flutes.

Code: Select all

// Replaces with spaces the braces in cases where braces in places cause stasis 
   $str = str_replace(array("\{","\}")," ",$str);

User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Blind groper » Sun Oct 14, 2012 12:07 am

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!
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.

User avatar
MiM
Man In The Middle
Posts: 5459
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by MiM » Sun Oct 14, 2012 1:37 pm

Blind groper wrote: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.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - Richard Feynman

User avatar
Blind groper
Posts: 3997
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2012 3:10 am
About me: From New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Olkiluoto geology

Post by Blind groper » Sun Oct 14, 2012 6:33 pm

MiM wrote: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.
For every human action, there is a rationalisation and a reason. Only sometimes do they coincide.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests