The only reason the landscape is a static unchanging thing to you is because you haven’t been taught that nothing could be further from the truth by a healthy culture, there is no easy place to put these barrels, most people who aren’t Geologists prescribe most of the Earth’s surface to being a passive background that things happen to and in not a character itself that acts sometimes over great lengths of time and sometimes over shockingly small lengths of time.
That is what people who aren’t Geologists really have a hard time understanding who aren’t leftists or haven’t been raised with Indigenous culture, the landscape is a verb not a noun and this idea there are caverns underground that will be forgotten by the movement above and rest safe for eternity is a fantastical way of thinking of the Earth System. It is a devastatingly incomplete way of seeing the world that sets up future generations to be screwed over by our hubris and lack of understanding of the dynamics we live within.
I am not entirely against Nuclear Power, but I refuse to have people explain to me Geologic lengths of times and contexts who have spent no amount of practical time actually learning how landscapes even far from active fault lines can change radically over time.
As a geologist myself, it doesnt sound like you are well informed. There are plenty of regions on the globe that haven’t exhibited any real geological activity for billions of years. The places that deep geological repositories are proposed are very deep as in far below the water table and in impermeable rock. Erosion is neglible in these areas, and there are very few geological processes that could conceivably change that. The waste itself is to be stored in multiple layers of protection, right down to the material the waste is composed of, which has a low water solubility.
Is it possible that a mid contental rift will open up near one of these and result in processes that ruin the storage site? Sure, but thats so unlikely that we might as well start talking about a big meteor crashing into the site and spraying nuclear fallout across the planet (which would kind of happen anyways with a meteor that large). Point is, the risk of that happening even on geological timescale is pretty low. There are larger risks associated with natural uranium deposits or even regions with large amounts of granite.
The biggest risks of DGRs is that some time in the future, humans forget about where they are or cant understand the warnings placed on them and accidentally dig them up before they decay enough.
Thats extremely reductive and not an all a fair characterization of DGRs. Everything comes with some risks, the risks associated with DGRs are extremely small. As an educated geologist who claims to be familiar with this topic, maybe you could share what risks you are concerned about rather than broadly claiming that it is impossible to guarantee against any risks on the timescale required for neutralization of radiation hazard.
So have you actually done any reading on the topic? You are a geologist and using your expertise as an argument that you know what you are talking about, but if you dont use that expertise to read and interpret literature and reports that non-experts have trouble with then you are doing others a disservice and using your qualifications to spread misinformation. DGRs do not need to last “forever” radioactive waste decays to radiation levels equivalent to natural deposits within 10,000 to 100,000 years. As you know, this is a very short period of time on geological time scales and the risk of some unanticipated geological phenomenon cropping up at the selected sites that would operate quickly enough to matter are extremely slim to the point that the risk is essentially 0. Off the top of my head the only two things that could happen that quickly and unexpectedly are impact events and kimberlites. These are two extremely rare and unlikely events that would have far greater consequences than disrupting a DGR.
End of the day, even if we stopped all nuclear power tomorrow, we still need a place to safely store the waste that exists. DGRs are the safest option that I am aware of, but maybe you have encountered other options in your time as a geologist that I have not.
No a DGR is by definition the most stable place to put something, as it has been specifically sought out and designated by a geologist for this purpose.
My problem is with the human parts of this that are all convinced this is an easy option, corners will be cut and the consequences will outlive all of us by orders of magnitude.
No, the idea that producing radioactive waste is ok because we can always find places to ferret it underground is one of the stupidest misunderstandings of how humans bullshit, cut corners and ignore inconvenient environmental contexts I can imagine.
We have not been studying the earth that long compared to other sciences, even Plate Tectonics is largely still not understood in many of the important aspects, I am sorry but when you turn around and say “nothing will happen to this rock for 100,000 years” you may be right but also there are going to be lots of things you don’t forsee and more importantly humans are going to cut corners you would never have imagined they would cut.
I am not saying we need to get rid of all nuclear power, I am saying it is nowhere as foolproof as an energy source as nuclear power advocates constantly push, it is not the future alternative energy is.
I’m really quite confused by your critique here. You aren’t against nuclear power, and you think DGRs are the best place to put nuclear waste, but you are concerned that it wont actually be managed properly? My concern is that it is not managed properly today with the current system of “Storing it in barrels above ground and moving it around every now and again”. If your argument is that solar power is a lower risk, more cost effective option than nuclear power then say that. Don’t use your expertise as grounds to criticize a waste management plan that you agree is our best option and that is desperately needed whether or not nuclear power is expanded. It only spreads more fear and misinformation about these sites.
The only reason the landscape is a static unchanging thing to you is because you haven’t been taught that nothing could be further from the truth by a healthy culture, there is no easy place to put these barrels, most people who aren’t Geologists prescribe most of the Earth’s surface to being a passive background that things happen to and in not a character itself that acts sometimes over great lengths of time and sometimes over shockingly small lengths of time.
That is what people who aren’t Geologists really have a hard time understanding who aren’t leftists or haven’t been raised with Indigenous culture, the landscape is a verb not a noun and this idea there are caverns underground that will be forgotten by the movement above and rest safe for eternity is a fantastical way of thinking of the Earth System. It is a devastatingly incomplete way of seeing the world that sets up future generations to be screwed over by our hubris and lack of understanding of the dynamics we live within.
I am not entirely against Nuclear Power, but I refuse to have people explain to me Geologic lengths of times and contexts who have spent no amount of practical time actually learning how landscapes even far from active fault lines can change radically over time.
Try again boss. I didn’t say that.
As a geologist myself, it doesnt sound like you are well informed. There are plenty of regions on the globe that haven’t exhibited any real geological activity for billions of years. The places that deep geological repositories are proposed are very deep as in far below the water table and in impermeable rock. Erosion is neglible in these areas, and there are very few geological processes that could conceivably change that. The waste itself is to be stored in multiple layers of protection, right down to the material the waste is composed of, which has a low water solubility.
Is it possible that a mid contental rift will open up near one of these and result in processes that ruin the storage site? Sure, but thats so unlikely that we might as well start talking about a big meteor crashing into the site and spraying nuclear fallout across the planet (which would kind of happen anyways with a meteor that large). Point is, the risk of that happening even on geological timescale is pretty low. There are larger risks associated with natural uranium deposits or even regions with large amounts of granite.
The biggest risks of DGRs is that some time in the future, humans forget about where they are or cant understand the warnings placed on them and accidentally dig them up before they decay enough.
The point is the idea that we assume we can gurantee something we absolutely cannot, it is hubris.
Thats extremely reductive and not an all a fair characterization of DGRs. Everything comes with some risks, the risks associated with DGRs are extremely small. As an educated geologist who claims to be familiar with this topic, maybe you could share what risks you are concerned about rather than broadly claiming that it is impossible to guarantee against any risks on the timescale required for neutralization of radiation hazard.
The humans telling me they found a special place to put radioactive things that will be protected “forever” is the part I don’t trust.
It is a seductive idea and my bullshit meter immediately starts flashing.
So have you actually done any reading on the topic? You are a geologist and using your expertise as an argument that you know what you are talking about, but if you dont use that expertise to read and interpret literature and reports that non-experts have trouble with then you are doing others a disservice and using your qualifications to spread misinformation. DGRs do not need to last “forever” radioactive waste decays to radiation levels equivalent to natural deposits within 10,000 to 100,000 years. As you know, this is a very short period of time on geological time scales and the risk of some unanticipated geological phenomenon cropping up at the selected sites that would operate quickly enough to matter are extremely slim to the point that the risk is essentially 0. Off the top of my head the only two things that could happen that quickly and unexpectedly are impact events and kimberlites. These are two extremely rare and unlikely events that would have far greater consequences than disrupting a DGR.
End of the day, even if we stopped all nuclear power tomorrow, we still need a place to safely store the waste that exists. DGRs are the safest option that I am aware of, but maybe you have encountered other options in your time as a geologist that I have not.
No a DGR is by definition the most stable place to put something, as it has been specifically sought out and designated by a geologist for this purpose.
My problem is with the human parts of this that are all convinced this is an easy option, corners will be cut and the consequences will outlive all of us by orders of magnitude.
No, the idea that producing radioactive waste is ok because we can always find places to ferret it underground is one of the stupidest misunderstandings of how humans bullshit, cut corners and ignore inconvenient environmental contexts I can imagine.
We have not been studying the earth that long compared to other sciences, even Plate Tectonics is largely still not understood in many of the important aspects, I am sorry but when you turn around and say “nothing will happen to this rock for 100,000 years” you may be right but also there are going to be lots of things you don’t forsee and more importantly humans are going to cut corners you would never have imagined they would cut.
I am not saying we need to get rid of all nuclear power, I am saying it is nowhere as foolproof as an energy source as nuclear power advocates constantly push, it is not the future alternative energy is.
I’m really quite confused by your critique here. You aren’t against nuclear power, and you think DGRs are the best place to put nuclear waste, but you are concerned that it wont actually be managed properly? My concern is that it is not managed properly today with the current system of “Storing it in barrels above ground and moving it around every now and again”. If your argument is that solar power is a lower risk, more cost effective option than nuclear power then say that. Don’t use your expertise as grounds to criticize a waste management plan that you agree is our best option and that is desperately needed whether or not nuclear power is expanded. It only spreads more fear and misinformation about these sites.
I mean, it depends. If you’re storing cesium, it’s a fine assumption. Iodine though…