Spain to dismantle over 30% of wind turbines in next 5 years

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

It’s pretty easy to ingest if it makes its way to the surface or into groundwater after 1, 2, or 3+ hundred thousand years. For context, that’s reaching into longer than modern humans have been modern humans. I don’t put much money on us remembering to keep up the place long term.

Do we store large, concentrated quantities of other toxic substances in tectonically active areas? If so, the same concerns apply. Does it matter if some other substances might be more toxic? These really just seem like whataboutisms.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Do we store large, concentrated quantities of other toxic substances in tectonically active areas?

Sure we do. Haven’t you seen pics of what the streets of San Francisco have looked like recently? It’s only a matter of time before “cholera outbreak” makes the news. That killed 28k people in 2015 according to Wikipedia.

 

[OVERKILL]

It’s pretty easy to ingest if it makes its way to the surface or into groundwater after 1, 2, or 3+ hundred thousand years.

By what mechanism do you propose that zirconium-clad ceramic pellets make their way out of that cladding, out of their containment canisters, become pulverized into a form that allows migration and then to the surface or into groundwater? And in concentrations that matter?

For context, that’s reaching into longer than modern humans have been modern humans. I don’t put much money on us remembering to keep up the place long term.

Luckily the idea here is that we don't have to maintain anything, that's why the material is put in geographically stable formations that have been that way for millions of years. Nature has provided us an example in many ways here with Oklo.

Do we store large, concentrated quantities of other toxic substances in tectonically active areas?

Again, I specifically said that I was not talking about Yucca Mountain, but rather the DGR concept. You are free to criticize your government's site selection, but the DGR concept itself is based on very sound science.

If so, the same concerns apply. Does it matter if some other substances might be more toxic? These really just seem like whataboutisms.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I generally enjoy our discussion because I find you tend to bring knowledge and a well-reasoned approach to the table. If you are inclined to dismiss my attempt at engagement here as merely "whataboutism" then I'll refrain from engaging with you going forward, as clearly that appreciation isn't mutual.

 

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

By what mechanism do you propose that zirconium-clad ceramic pellets make their way out of that cladding, out of their containment canisters, become pulverized into a form that allows migration and then to the surface or into groundwater? And in concentrations that matter?

The same mechanisms that lead to entire mountains forming and eroding, that turns rock into dust. It’s hard to comprehend the timescale here.

Luckily the idea here is that we don't have to maintain anything, that's why the material is put in geographically stable formations that have been that way for millions of years. Nature has provided us an example in many ways here with Oklo.

I think the point is just that Yucca mountain is not as geologically stable as one would ideally wish for.

Again, I specifically said that I was not talking about Yucca Mountain, but rather the DGR concept. You are free to criticize your government's site selection, but the DGR concept itself is based on very sound science.

Gotcha. No arguments here. We have to deal with waste somehow. As you probably know already, I’m just personally rather skeptical of shortsighted engineers constrained to work within budgetary limits.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I generally enjoy our discussion because I find you tend to bring knowledge and a well-reasoned approach to the table. If you are inclined to dismiss my attempt at engagement here as merely "whataboutism" then I'll refrain from engaging with you going forward, as clearly that appreciation isn't mutual.

I apologize if that came off as flippant or rude. It just reminds me of what some in my own industry do when confronted with the “fracking” debate. While the public is grossly misinformed, there are some legitimate concerns that depend heavily on the geology, the regulatory effectiveness, and many other factors. Overall it’s nowhere near as unsafe as some members of the public think, but there are cases where aquifers could become contaminated.

 

[goingplacesanddoingstuff]

Sure we do. Haven’t you seen pics of what the streets of San Francisco have looked like recently? It’s only a matter of time before “cholera outbreak” makes the news. That killed 28k people in 2015 according to Wikipedia.

Ugh that’s disgusting and sad.

 

[OVERKILL]

The same mechanisms that lead to entire mountains forming and eroding, that turns rock into dust. It’s hard to comprehend the timescale here.

But that's millions of years, not thousands, correct? That's why looking at the relative toxicity data over time is important, as it adds some (important) context. If it's the same as 3% grade natural uranium within a reasonably short period, which is found all over the place, in non-stable locations, including aquifers, then what timescale do we really need to be concerned with? And is that within the confidence data range for the site being considered? That's the framing I'm considering. If you aren't confident that Yucca Mountain meets that criteria, and I saw your criticisms, then I'd like to hear more about why that's the case if you don't mind?

I know in Canada, our DGR selection is focusing on sites that have been geologically stable for millions of years and where the surrounding granite has more uranium in it above the DGR, than the DGR will (example image, on the existing Bruce site):

I think the point is just that Yucca mountain is not as geologically stable as one would ideally wish for.

Totally fair point. As I noted, my comments are just in regard to the overall DGR concept.

Gotcha. No arguments here. We have to deal with waste somehow.

Yes, we do, and the consensus is DGR. We are on the same page with respect to appropriate site selection being paramount.

As you probably know already, I’m just personally rather skeptical of shortsighted engineers constrained to work within budgetary limits.

Absolutely, and there is no shortage of examples that can be pointed to that support that concern.

I apologize if that came off as flippant or rude. It just reminds me of what some in my own industry do when confronted with the “fracking” debate. While the public is grossly misinformed, there are some legitimate concerns that depend heavily on the geology, the regulatory effectiveness, and many other factors. Overall it’s nowhere near as unsafe as some members of the public think, but there are cases where aquifers could become contaminated.

No worries, thank you! Totally get the cynicism, given your area of employment.

 

[edhackett]

But that's millions of years, not thousands, correct? That's why looking at the relative toxicity data over time is important, as it adds some (important) context. If it's the same as 3% grade natural uranium within a reasonably short period, which is found all over the place, in non-stable locations, including aquifers, then what timescale do we really need to be concerned with? And is that within the confidence data range for the site being considered? That's the framing I'm considering. If you aren't confident that Yucca Mountain meets that criteria, and I saw your criticisms, then I'd like to hear more about why that's the case if you don't mind?

Here's a summary of the history of Yucca Mountain. It's heavy on the legal aspects, but that was a big part of the story. The buggery the Feds engaged in, including the falsification of data and models, breaking of their own regulations, and rewriting the regulations on the fly. Footnotes 14-16 address the geological issues.

I worked on the project and I'll never forget when Theresa came running in and said that water was dripping into the tunnels. Nevada geologists and hydrologists knew the site was unsuitable before the first shovel of dirt was moved.

Yucca Mountain -- Nevada's Perspective

Ed

 

[OVERKILL]

Here's a summary of the history of Yucca Mountain. It's heavy on the legal aspects, but that was a big part of the story. The buggery the Feds engaged in, including the falsification of data and models, breaking of their own regulations, and rewriting the regulations on the fly. Footnotes 14-16 address the geological issues.

I worked on the project and I'll never forget when Theresa came running in and said that water was dripping into the tunnels. Nevada geologists and hydrologists knew the site was unsuitable before the first shovel of dirt was moved.

Yucca Mountain -- Nevada's Perspective

Ed

Thanks Ed, appreciate it, I'll look through.

 

[BMWTurboDzl]

Here's a summary of the history of Yucca Mountain. It's heavy on the legal aspects, but that was a big part of the story. The buggery the Feds engaged in, including the falsification of data and models, breaking of their own regulations, and rewriting the regulations on the fly. Footnotes 14-16 address the geological issues.

I worked on the project and I'll never forget when Theresa came running in and said that water was dripping into the tunnels. Nevada geologists and hydrologists knew the site was unsuitable before the first shovel of dirt was moved.

Yucca Mountain -- Nevada's Perspective

Ed

And people wonder why nuclear has a bad rap in the US.

 

[OVERKILL]

And people wonder why nuclear has a bad rap in the US.

The wild part is, the site is still considered a valid choice by the NRC:

High-Level Waste Disposal

www.nrc.gov

 

[MaxPF]

The truth is, "disposing" of spent nuclear fuel is borderline criminal. It's throwing away perfectly good fuel. Light water power reactors only burn a tiny fraction of the U-235 in the fuel. Likewise, only a meager amount of the U-238, which is the bulk of the fuel, is converted to plutonium and burned. Thermal reactor engineers consider U-238 to be useless, which is idiotic. It's only one neutron capture away from becoming U-239, which then decays in short order to Np-239 and then to Pu-239. The only way a uranium fueled fission chain can provide very long term energy is to burn the 238 in fast fission reactors. Fast reactors have the added advantage that they burn up all those nasty actinides.

I will further opine that water-moderated reactors are a piss-poor way of building a nuclear reactor. We can thank Admiral Hyman Rickover for that. Molten salt reactors are a much more logical way of building a nuclear reactor. And the molten salt reactors based on the Thorium fuel cycle has numerous benefits over Uranium fueled reactors.