Page 2 of 3

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 10:12 am
by emordnilap
Filter Feeder wrote:West Cumbria has mass unemployment and are not at all squeamish about the nuclear industry. It employs a lot of people already.
Hmmph. I've known three workers there who aren't from the area, so it wouldn't be surprising if the percentage of outsiders in the workforce is high.

Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2013 9:15 pm
by Filter Feeder
emordnilap wrote:
Filter Feeder wrote:West Cumbria has mass unemployment and are not at all squeamish about the nuclear industry. It employs a lot of people already.
Hmmph. I've known three workers there who aren't from the area, so it wouldn't be surprising if the percentage of outsiders in the workforce is high.
A lot of the kids I went to school have worked there at one time or another - Sallafield is probably the biggest single employer in the area.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 3:24 pm
by clv101
biffvernon wrote:...the geology is not ideal.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Under hundreds of metres of imperfect geology is immeasurably better than being under 6 inches of water when the lights go out.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:00 pm
by biffvernon
Yes, but better geology exists in other parts of Britain and not in National Parks.

A short boat ride from Sellafield to Dalbeatie might be in order.

Image

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 6:13 pm
by Filter Feeder
What about Lincolnshire? As good a place as any...

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:12 pm
by biffvernon
Not a lot of granite in Lincolnshire - it's just layers of sedimentaries for a very long way down. Of course we might have fracking to look forward to.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 7:37 pm
by clv101
biffvernon wrote:Yes, but better geology exists in other parts of Britain and not in National Parks.

A short boat ride from Sellafield to Dalbeatie might be in order.
Sure - I'm not saying the geology in Cumbria is ideal, nor that better rocks exist elsewhere.

What I'm saying is that this negative decision has extended the length of time - probably by at least a decade - before the nuclear waste is moved from being under six inches of water to being under hundreds of metres of rock.

Couple this delay to the current 'active' management requirements of the waste and my low confidence in grid reliability over multi-decade timescales and I see this decision as significantly increasing the chance the waste will go up in smoke.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:13 pm
by Totally_Baffled
Chris - educate me here.

Currently this waste material is under 6 inches of water - is this for cooling old nuclear material/waste (spent rods?)

If the waste went under rock , would it still need to be in water to be cooled? Would that still require an electricity supply to circulate/cool? If the electricity goes out whilst the waste is under ground - what happens? Would it be a contained explosion?

Apologies if I am way off here or have misunderstood :shock:

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:20 pm
by Filter Feeder
At least British spent fuel rods aren't stored on top of the reactors as they were at Fukushima, and several other places who still run the same design. The logic of it defies belief.

Image

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:32 pm
by biffvernon
The idea of deep geological disposal is that the waste material is put in a very deep place in very strong, impermeable, unfractured rock. The entrance in then blocked with a tremendous amount of very strong, impermeable, unfractured concrete and the whole affair can then be utterly and completely forgotten with absolutely no human intervention for tens of thousands of years (plutonium-239, half-life 24,100 years).

Of course it begs questions about whether such a depository can be constructed which cannot be opened by inquisitive future civilisations that have no knowledge of the hazards within, or whether natural processes such as glaciers could expose the depository.

clv101 is right to be concerned about getting the stuff locked away now, while our economy can still cope, but I don't see that a change from Cumbria to Dumfries & Galloway should cause much delay. Some of us told them to do it this way many years ago and it's high time the government took geology more seriously than the convenience of local employment politics.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:37 pm
by biffvernon
Filter Feeder wrote:The logic of it defies belief.
The logic of it comes from the ability to get the rods out of the reactor and into the initial storage pond without ever, not even for a moment, lifting them out of the water. There's a continuous water tank connecting the reactor top to the storage pond.

It is, as we've seen, one of the inherent dangers in this sort of nuclear power station. Good job we are not going to build any more of them.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:39 pm
by Snail
but I don't see that a change from Cumbria to Dumfries & Galloway should cause much delay. Some of us told them to do it this way many years ago and it's high time the government took geology more seriously than the convenience of local employment politics.
Nah. Civ is right. Get it in the ground asap (in cumbria). :o

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:45 pm
by biffvernon
Snail wrote: (in cumbria). :o
Why?

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:49 pm
by Snail
I can't deny it. I'm a nimby in d&g! :oops:
:lol:

I suppose it has to go somewhere tho.

Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2013 9:54 pm
by Filter Feeder
It's not employment politics which made Cumbria the prime choice, it was the belief that this was the most likely site which would avoid NIMBYism. Plans to site a huge underground nuclear depository in West Cumbria have been circulating for more than 20 years. The NIREX plan was rejected in 1997, mostly on grounds of geology.

The rocks haven't changed.