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 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.