Finland's nuclear waste bunker built to last 100,000 years

[mgsooner]

Some really interesting things to think about.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/11/12/finland.nuclear.waste/index.html?hpt=C2

(CNN) -- It's one of the great questions of our age: What to do with nuclear waste?

It's challenging, not just because radioactive material is highly toxic, but because really engaging with the problem forces us to confront unimaginable timescales.

But in Finland they believe they have found a solution, with the world's first permanent nuclear-waste repository -- "Onkalo" -- a huge system of underground tunnels that is being hewn out of solid rock and must last at least 100,000 years.

"It is our law that we have to dispose of our nuclear waste within Finland's borders," Timo Seppala, from Posiva, the company constructing the site, told CNN.

"It was also important that we found a solution that would require no surveillance or management by future generations."

The site is situated at Olkiluoto, approximately 185 miles northwest of Helsinki.

Work on the concept behind the facility commenced in 1970s and the repository is expected to be backfilled and decommissioned in the 2100s. None of the 40 people working on the facility today will live to see it completed.

The bunker is based around a spiraling track that will eventually be three miles long, and reach a depth of 500 meters.

"We are at final disposal depth now, about 420 meters," said Seppala.

The waste will be secured through a system of "multiple barriers," the first being the Finnish bedrock itself, the rest engineered from steel and concrete, with the waste fuel rods stored in corrosion-resistant copper canisters with five centimeter-thick walls.

These canisters will then be deposited in a bed of bentonite clay that, because it swells when it absorbs water, will both create a buffer against any geological movement and prevent liquid pooling, which could corrode the copper.

"There are no countries who are as far ahead as we are in this area," said Seppala. "We are going to be the ones who set the standard for final disposal."

The final cost is expected to be &euro3 billion ($4.1 billion). But since the 1970s the Finnish government has been collecting a clean-up fund from the generating companies via a levy on the price of nuclear power, which is already over &euro1.7 billion and will be used to fund the final disposal.

Onkalo is the subject of "Into Eternity," a new documentary by Danish filmmaker Michael Madsen, which explores some of the philosophical questions raised by the facility.

"What interested me was how those involved [with Onkalo] responded to the idea of 100,000 years," Madsen told CNN. "That time span is new to humanity.

"What does it say about our civilization when we build something that will last to a time when all we know is gone and forgotten?"

"Into Eternity" is very different to most "eco documentaries," taking as it does a detached view of proceedings, offering viewers fictional myths about how the site may be remembered, alongside interviews with engineers and scientists.

"I had to get beyond talking about it as a technological problem," said Madsen.

"In many ways I think that these engineers are tasked with a much greater problem than they can actually solve.

"You can perhaps build this facility in titanium-reinforced concrete, but that's not the real issue.

"How are we going to stop people getting in there at a point at which all knowledge will have been lost?"

What debate there is centers around whether it is better that Onkalo is remembered -- and all is done to ensure the memory of the danger buried there is passed on, right down to constructing hieroglyphic monoliths to speak pictorially to a time when all current languages are long dead.

Or whether it is better sealed and forgotten.

The fear is that for whatever reason, future generations will start digging, unaware of what is inside.

However, Seppala believes Madsen makes too much of the risk.

He said he enjoyed "Into Eternity" as a piece of art, but he felt it overplayed the consequences of anyone entering Onkalo in the future.

"The film gives the impression that opening Onkalo would be like opening a Pandora's box," he said. "But in reality a few people would be exposed to radiation; it would not be a global catastrophe."

However, Madsen believes there is still uncertainty.

"In the United States they say that the same high-level waste being buried at Onkalo has to be kept safe for a million years," he said.

"It's an open question: How long should we keep this stuff safe? When we start talking in these timescales we just don't know."

[Ike]

"How are we going to stop people getting in there at a point at which all knowledge will have been lost?"

What debate there is centers around whether it is better that Onkalo is remembered -- and all is done to ensure the memory of the danger buried there is passed on, right down to constructing hieroglyphic monoliths to speak pictorially to a time when all current languages are long dead.

Cause hieroglyphic monoliths depicting certain doom always stopped Indiana Jones from going inside.

Nope, you are gonna need some booby traps. Spears and Rolling Boulders. And impossible puzzles to solve. Perhaps even a 1000 year old knight.

[okie52]

Still waiting on Chu/Obama to give an explanation for closing Yucca in 4/2009. Billions in the making, approved by the NAS, congress and 4 previous administrations and, ironically, supported by National Science labs (including Chu) just 6 months before Chu was named Sec of Energy.

[AlboSooner]

Western Europe is up to par with the US when it comes to scientific discovery

[jumperstop]

Lets just build a rocket and shoot it all into the sun, what's the worst that can happen?

[Oldnslo]

Lets just build a rocket and shoot it all into the sun, what's the worst that can happen?

The rocket malfunctions before escaping Earth's gravity and you get nuclear waste exploded and spread all across a heavily populated area. And we die.

[jumperstop]

The rocket malfunctions before escaping Earth's gravity and you get nuclear waste exploded and spread all across a heavily populated area. And we die.

sorry should have put :rolleyes:

I think the fact that you would be cramming a **** ton of nuclear waste into the sun, our life source on planet earth, would be dumb enough by itself.

[NormanPride]

It would melt and dissipate into orbit long before it ever got to the surface.

[Ike]

The rocket malfunctions before escaping Earth's gravity and you get nuclear waste exploded and spread all across a heavily populated area. And we die.

OhhhhhKay. Then how about a really really really big catapult!

;)

[The]

OhhhhhKay. Then how about a really really really big catapult!

;)



SPACE
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R

[Ike]

sorry should have put :rolleyes:

I think the fact that you would be cramming a **** ton of nuclear waste into the sun, our life source on planet earth, would be dumb enough by itself.

A#1, it wouldn't really be that much nuclear waste. We'd think it's a lot, but compared to the size of the sun, it would be like a grain of sand to the earth.

B#2, there really wouldn't be much of an effect that this would have on us here. We might get slightly prettier northern lights once or twice. Maybe.

[soonerboomer93]

OhhhhhKay. Then how about a really really really big catapult!

;)

Catapults ftmfw!

[NormanPride]

251361238462937235862347122nd floor: Nothing...

...

251361238462937235862347123th floor: The Sun

[The]

251361238462937235862347122nd floor: Nothing...

...

251361238462937235862347123th floor: The Sun


Oh ****, it's the sun!

[NormanPride]

Oh snap, son! The sun!

[jumperstop]

A#1, it wouldn't really be that much nuclear waste. We'd think it's a lot, but compared to the size of the sun, it would be like a grain of sand to the earth.

B#2, there really wouldn't be much of an effect that this would have on us here. We might get slightly prettier northern lights once or twice. Maybe.

Yes, and the sun is also a big flaming nuclear power plant but I still don't think that's a great idea because that's a big maybe. Nobody probably really knows what would happen for sure...

[NormanPride]

Yeah we do. That's like saying we don't know for sure what throwing a wad of paper into an incinerator is going to do.

[The]

Are we srsly debating whether or not we can affect the SUN???

We could hurl Earth into it, and it would just keep on keeping on, no big whoop, what, wanna fight about it?

[jumperstop]

Yeah we do. That's like saying we don't know for sure what throwing a wad of paper into an incinerator is going to do.

Ok maybe we have a good idea of what would happen, but I'm sure there are effects that would be unforeseen if we started deposting all our nuclear waste into the sun. If not, why aren't we doing that? Sounds like a lot more sure deal thing than 100,000 years underground...where it'll be forgotten and dug up by future humans creating a new nuclear zombie race!

[Ike]

Yes, and the sun is also a big flaming nuclear power plant but I still don't think that's a great idea because that's a big maybe. Nobody probably really knows what would happen for sure...

No...we do, pretty much, know what would happen. The 'Maybe' in my previous post meant that if we are really unlucky, we get slightly brighter northern lights. But even then, we wouldn't be able to tell if that was because of the material.
First, everything we sent there would melt, then evaporate. The atoms of whatever we sent would essentially become free particles. They'd start a descent down to the core of the sun, being heavier than most of the other atoms of the sun (mostly hydrogen, plus a little helium). Some of them will decay, radioactively. Those decay products will drift around inside the sun with the other atoms. You might have some of the material ejected by means of a solar flare. But on it's way to earth (if it was actually ejected in the direction of earth), that material has lots and lots of time to disperse. some of it may reach earth. But not very much. Likely, only a few atoms worth over a long timespan. The rest of it will eventually make its way down to the core. Where it will sit and decay and sit and decay. And occasionally get bumped by hydrogen. Or Helium.


It would be like throwing a gallon of gasoline into the middle of a forest fire. But even less so.

[Ike]

Ok maybe we have a good idea of what would happen, but I'm sure there are effects that would be unforeseen if we started deposting all our nuclear waste into the sun. If not, why aren't we doing that? Sounds like a lot more sure deal thing than 100,000 years underground...where it'll be forgotten and dug up by future humans creating a new nuclear zombie race!

Read Oldnslo's comment as to why we aren't doing it. The risks come not from what happens when the stuff gets to the sun, but from actually getting it into space and away from earth in the first place. Sending anything into space is a risky process. And it's not a question of if an accident happens, but when an accident happens.

[sooner59]

We should just designate Neptune or one of those planets as our trash can planet and just shoot a bunch of **** at it. From what I have read about their atmospheres/surfaces, it might not even make it to the surface before it was destroyed.

[Pricetag]

What if the stuff hit the sun at night, though?

[Ike]

What if the stuff hit the sun at night, though?

:D

[jumperstop]

Read Oldnslo's comment as to why we aren't doing it. The risks come not from what happens when the stuff gets to the sun, but from actually getting it into space and away from earth in the first place. Sending anything into space is a risky process. And it's not a question of if an accident happens, but when an accident happens.

I read that...but is it more safe to get rid of it for good, or leave it underground to get lost and have a time span of 100,000 years? Maybe it would have been better to spend the money they used building this elaborate facility researching new technologies to get it to the sun safer. That is, if shooting into the sun isn't such a bad idea, which it probably is...

[Leroy Lizard]

Put it in barrels and drop it to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

[jumperstop]

Put it in barrels and drop it to the bottom of the Marianas Trench.

I think they already tried that. I've seen video from the 50's or 60's of them just pushing barrels of nuclear waste off a boat into the water.

[NormanPride]

Or we could, you know, shoot it into deep space and let it float for trillions of years before it even left the galaxy on the way to the void between galaxies.

[AlbqSooner]

Question 1: Where is the prototype located that proved this facility will last 100,000 years?

Question 2: Since the half-life of plutonium is something like 250,000 years, does it really matter?

[49r]

Question 1: Where is the prototype located that proved this facility will last 100,000 years?

Question 2: Since the half-life of plutonium is something like 250,000 years, does it really matter?

Not to me it doesn't.

[Breadburner]

Lets just feed it to the Chinese......

[The]

Lets just feed it to the Chinese......

Great idea. Then they'd all turn into Atomic Supermen and kick our butts at basketball.

[Ike]

I read that...but is it more safe to get rid of it for good, or leave it underground to get lost and have a time span of 100,000 years? Maybe it would have been better to spend the money they used building this elaborate facility researching new technologies to get it to the sun safer. That is, if shooting into the sun isn't such a bad idea, which it probably is...

Are you reading what you are posting?

We'll try this step by step:
1) Safer to get rid of it for good. But it's safe enough to park it far enough The sun is a good place for that. Or maybe just the void outside our solar system. The universe is really big. In that context, this stuff is really small. However, it's safe enough to park it all way way underground. But in order to do so, we have to think things through, like how do we make such a place that will last this long?

2) You ask then, if that is indeed the case, why we are wasting our money building underground storage, and not use that money instead on just throwing it out into space. It's not a horrible question, but considering that both options carry risks, why put all your eggs in one basket? We've been working on spaceflight nearly as long as we've been creating nuclear waste. The safety record of spaceflight is still not great. How much money and how much time do you think it would take to make 100% reliable rockets to send stuff to the sun?

[jumperstop]

Are you reading what you are posting?

We'll try this step by step:
1) Safer to get rid of it for good. But it's safe enough to park it far enough The sun is a good place for that. Or maybe just the void outside our solar system. The universe is really big. In that context, this stuff is really small. However, it's safe enough to park it all way way underground. But in order to do so, we have to think things through, like how do we make such a place that will last this long?

2) You ask then, if that is indeed the case, why we are wasting our money building underground storage, and not use that money instead on just throwing it out into space. It's not a horrible question, but considering that both options carry risks, why put all your eggs in one basket? We've been working on spaceflight nearly as long as we've been creating nuclear waste. The safety record of spaceflight is still not great. How much money and how much time do you think it would take to make 100% reliable rockets to send stuff to the sun?

I understand that the amount of waste is tiny in comparison to the sun/universe and there are already the same chemical in natural forms out in space. I just don't know if it's our place to be shooting stuff into the sun. That said, if we could perfect the send it there part it seems a lot safer than storing it underground. Who knows how the earth will funtion 100,000 years from now. What if the plates of the crust shift, placing that nuclear storage place over a volcano? Then we have a nuclear waste volcano on our hands. So basically I'm arguing both sides at once cause honestly, what the hell do we do with all that stuff? I just think the 100,000 years seems a bit short sited on our part. Kinda like, "**** what happens to future people, I'll be long dead". There has to be a more permanent solution.

[Ike]

I understand that the amount of waste is tiny in comparison to the sun/universe and there are already the same chemical in natural forms out in space. I just don't know if it's our place to be shooting stuff into the sun. That said, if we could perfect the send it there part it seems a lot safer than storing it underground. Who knows how the earth will funtion 100,000 years from now. What if the plates of the crust shift, placing that nuclear storage place over a volcano? Then we have a nuclear waste volcano on our hands. So basically I'm arguing both sides at once cause honestly, what the hell do we do with all that stuff? I just think the 100,000 years seems a bit short sited on our part. Kinda like, "**** what happens to future people, I'll be long dead". There has to be a more permanent solution.

It's fine for you to argue this way...but you are REALLY glossing over the difficulty of "perfecting" sending this stuff into space. By a lot.

[The]

It's fine for you to argue this way...but you are REALLY glossing over the difficulty of "perfecting" sending this stuff into space. By a lot.

SPACE
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R

[Ike]

SPACE
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R


heh. That only gets us part of the way there. You still have risks of rocket-explodey.

[My Opinion Matters]

This is the first time I've ever seen someone refer to planning 100,000 years in advance as "short-sighted".

[The]

heh. That only gets us part of the way there. You still have risks of rocket-explodey.

It's space. We just have a Mexican push it. Towards the sun.

[Ike]

This is the first time I've ever seen someone refer to planning 100,000 years in advance as "short-sighted".

No...it was "short sited". I think he meant that the caves are only big enough for midgets.

[Breadburner]

It's space. We just have a Mexican push it. Towards the sun.

I think a Mexican Roomba can take care of it.....

[Leroy Lizard]

I think they already tried that. I've seen video from the 50's or 60's of them just pushing barrels of nuclear waste off a boat into the water.

Sounds good to me. What happened?

[jumperstop]

No...it was "short sited". I think he meant that the caves are only big enough for midgets.

Sorry grammar police...but no it's short sighted when it'll be twice that long before it's not harmful.

[soonercruiser]

Still waiting on Chu/Obama to give an explanation for closing Yucca in 4/2009. Billions in the making, approved by the NAS, congress and 4 previous administrations and, ironically, supported by National Science labs (including Chu) just 6 months before Chu was named Sec of Energy.

Yup! Some small European country can do it; but, the U.S. can't!
(At least under the current leadership in Washington.)
:(

[stoopified]

Wo is responsible for the warranty in 99,999 years?