Do you feel at ease with the idea that there is a permanent nuclear waste cave in Finland?

Yes, perfectly.

Now, that cave I’m not going to visit, but it’s a small price to pay.People tend to exaggerate the danger of nuclear waste, especially because they do not understand it and because they underestimate the effects of the alternatives.

I prefer to live next to that cave or next to the nuclear power station next to a coal plant.In The first case nothing happens; In the second case, I almost certainly get respiratory problems and lung cancer. Energy policy is a matter of finding a balance and the relatively minor inconvenience of nuclear waste is negligible compared to the disadvantages of other forms of energy generation.

Yeah, nice far away anyway.

It is better than the idea than the Westhoek price given to the sea.“De Panne and Nieuwpoort give up to save rest from rising sea level” But all that is not enough.The Arctic ice is now max. 4 m thick. If it is melted, it will be warmer, and Greenland can melt down accelerated. If one does nothing special one has 3 m rise per century.

Now one has about 12% alternative in Europe, 31% nuclear energy.Electricity disclosure 2015 If one wants to eliminate nuclear energy one must alternative * 3.5 and then one has not yet a single gram of CO2 saved.It will also require even more electricity for heat pumps (more than CO2) and also electric vehicles. All vehicles should be much lighter. A seat in a wagon weighs 15芒 鈧?”20kg. A kart seat 1芒 鈧?”2kg, a bicycle saddle 500g. Heavy electric cars indirectly emit a lot of CO2 through the power plants (ca. 400gCO2/kWh) and their battery (its price is a sign on the wall). One can also make combustion engines more economical: the vehicle is much lighter and a PV panel on the roof so the alternator almost does not have to work, CA 10芒 鈧?”20% savings.

Again a very tendentious question which in itself inflect the truth.

Finland is perhaps the first one to have indeed opted for a solution to the remains of its nuclear energy and not simply to continue to push the problem forward.In fact, they are not alone. Sweden has also opted for the same solution and both are about the same far in the project.

Firstly, no “cave” was chosen for this, but a geological stabile layer.Scandinavie is an almost massive granite block, and both in Olkiluoto, Finland and Forsmark, Sweden a layer of granite was chosen which is several hundred meters thick without cracks or joints. By Posiva and SKB, respectively, a corridors system was dug which will eventually be used to store the Castors with used nuclear fuel.

I also refer to a post I have on the English Quora If spent nuclear fuel reprocessing reduces its half-life so dramatically that it only needs to be stored several decades, why is Finland constructing nuclear waste shelter that is supposed to Withstand for hundreds of thousands of years? Poste in this regard.

Now, both Finland and Sweden have decided not to recycle their used nuclear fuel and go as such for geological salvage.There are certain arguments of a mainly political nature, but it is up to their honour that both countries are tackling the problem. Both countries have therefore decided that nuclear energy will also be part of their future energy policy. Finland, in particular, is still fully committed to this. These countries are therefore among the lowest CO2-Outers in Europe. Sweden even supplies a large proportion of the CO2-free electricity in Denmark. Daily viewing the site is very enlightening in this topical discussion.

Now, by the choices of non re-cyclers these fuel elements still have to cool down for a number of years at the surface in special buildings before one also actually passes to salvage.But the legal decision is indeed taken and the corridors are largely dug.

In both cases, and although it is basically a definitive salvage, the chosen technology is in principle reversible anyway.This means that if we have a method to process this waste within a few years, we can proceed to salvage.

Now, as far as my sense of security is concerned, that is of course a largely personal appreciation.But I can say that I feel perfectly safe and even safer with this solution than with a temporary storage, often in barrels that were once chosen for temporary storage, whereby one is always a solution for itself because with Does not have the courage to take a decision on it.
Apart from the fact that the possible residual radiation also does not pose a great danger and within a “few” years will not even be distinguishable from the natural radioactivity.(This ruling must be taken with a grain of salt but does contain a ground of truth)

Our modern society now requires a lot of energy and we will have to make choices.Even apart from the climate, the fossil raw material will ever be exhausted. Continuing to hope for solar and wind miracles will not save us fear I.

I didn’t know there was so鈩?N existed.How would it be arranged? In the USSR, almost everything was thrown into a big heap at the beginning of their nuclear weapons programme until the whole thing exploded on an evil day. The Khystym disaster. A large area was for a long time for uninhabitable explained.

Leave a Reply