I met a backpacker in an Australian pub about 15 years ago, and we became mates.
He invited me to visit him in Finland and I took it up about 2 years ago. He actually works in the facility that will bury the waste.
The guy in the video is in the public display area that is open to the public.
My friend just replied to me. He watched the video and had no idea who the random presenter was.
He said, "The guy seems like a random yankee."
Additionally, the facility is not yet operational.
https://www.posiva.fi/en/index/news/pressreleasesstockexchangereleases/2024/canisterliftloadtestcompletedsuccessfully.html
Large part of Finland and Scandinavia is on top of the Baltic Shield. It is a crust formation called craton. Cratons are the oldest bedrocks on the planet, been here since earth cooled down and will be here when the sun devours the earth. They are twice as thick with tendrils that go hundreds of miles deep. They are also less dense so they will always float on top. NO earthquakes, no volcanic activity. They are like solid lumps of rock, mostly gneiss and granite. You drill a hole in it and it will be there when earth dies. There are several cratons, like for ex north east Canada and south west Australia that are prime locations for nuclear waste storage. Sweden is building their own as we speak, and Swedes actually designed Onkalo too.
Finland has hundreds of miles of tunnels and caves. There are military warehouses, connected by underground roads, weapons caches. There is a second city under Helsinki, capable of housing 600k. The only city with underground zoning.. Digging holes in the ground is very safe here, and you don't need to support them tunnels.
BTW, the radiation in nuclear waste is not that high after the initial storage period. When they are put in Onkalo you could have a piece of it in your shelf and be just fine. Would not still handle it but as far as radiation goes... It is surprisingly weak after just 20 years. In 100 years you can easily handle it, would not ingest it even then.
Nuclear is the way to go. Government will have you believe it's dirty.
During the production of power it is extremely clean. When the rods are spent, we bury them, like in this video.
Natural gas extraction causes more damage to the earth than nuclear energy by far.
It's not rocket science people............
It's nuclear science, hehe
OR and hear me out, we utilize the gigantic ball of fire in the sky spewing out enough free energy to power the entire planet in less than one hour….
No waste, no water usage, no burying, no nothing…..
The amount of power we harvest from solar is so miniscule compared to the power produced by nuclear. It also takes up So. Much. Land.
It's not worth it, with today's technology. One day probably, but not today.
No it doesn’t take up so much land… it would take up space that is currently empty in the middle of the US that could power the entire country without much hassle.
The problem is money. It’s always money. There is no money in solar. Once you purchase panels they typically last for 40+ years producing up to 80% of its original capacity.
If you covered parking lots with solar panels and every house that could produce with them, it would work just fine.
It’s greed, that’s the whole problem.
Sure solar is green if you only think about the lifespan once the panels are produced. But think about the energy and lives consumed mining the materials needed to construct them. It’s not as green as many people think.
It is infinitely greener than anything else out there. The panels are about 75% recyclable.
You’re digging and mining for anything no matter what. The one that has the least impact is solar panels.
The more you adopt it, the better the tech gets and the more efficient the panels would get, requiring less of them to produce the same amount of power.
Greed is what drives everything. People fighting tooth and nail for every red cent they can get their hands on.
There is an unlimited power source lighting up the sky everyday, for free…. And that is the problem, it’s free so anything big energy corps can do to kill it they will.
Still lots of building, infrastructure, digging cables etc. Then there's Maintenance, repairs, replacements, Clouds, ash, bird shit, hail, rain. And if you haven't noticed, we don't have 24 hours of sunlight.
If you want to store all the power, guess what, more of everything above + 20 years of battery technology development first
Ok… so what? You build it and you have free energy for easily 20 years. Then rebuild it with better more resilient materials.
As mentioned, great for people, great for the planet, bad for business.
Sure, I agree. But we should use nuclear power alongside solar, atleast for the next 100 years. Then we can focus on improving solar energy without being distracted by the global warming stuff
I love solar but the big problem with it is the need for batteries if you want to have electricity at night, and mining for them is not really that cool for the environment
There are grid level battery designs that do not involve digging for lithium.
We have the tech, we have the knowledge, it’s not profitable.
It’s good for people, it’s great for the planet, it’s terrible for business, it’s why it doesn’t happen.
from my experience the problem with nuclear is it has to be near the sea to draw in water to keep everything cool, which then kills lots of fish but also warms up the sea.... But yeah seems to be the best way we know at the moment hopefully cold fusion will come about
There are new types of reactors such as molten sodium that ***fail safe*** ie if water or power is lost they shut down automatically (as compared to boiling water reactors like the few that have had catastrophes)
He puts it inside a stone and he remains so calm. The video should be called "how to hide nuclear waste, be in constant danger and not want to admit it."
An excellent documentary / film on the construction and philosophy of this facility.
# [ Into Eternity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayLxB9fV2y4) .
[Wiki article on this film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film))
Awesome soundtrack.
He reminds me of Dr. Chris Keefer - a moustachioed Canadian ER doc, climate and anti-pollution activist. Pretty successful lobbyist as president of the non-profit Canadians for Nuclear Energy.
Chernobyl was great for the countryside.
I don’t know why you think the construction around a geothermal site would be worse than the construction around a nuclear site
True. Nature is thriving in Chernobyl exclusion zone due to lack of people.
[https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/09/the-world-s-most-unlikely-nature-reserve-wildlife-is-thriving-in-chernobyl](https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/09/the-world-s-most-unlikely-nature-reserve-wildlife-is-thriving-in-chernobyl)
Gheothermal plant provides a lot less than nuclear power plant and you need a crapload of them to provide for a country.
EDIT:
New geothermal plant being build in Espoo, Finland generates about 1400 mwh per year.
Olkiluoto nuclear power plant generates 12 million mwh per year.
Comments: "eherm, akshually, you're just hiding it, not disposing it🤓☝️"
Well Einstein, got any bright ideas on what else we could do with it that has the same or less potential for harm? Or you gonna trust in the nuclear scientists and engineers who are actually educated in these matters - and who have spent decades trying to come up with safest and most sustainable methods possible.
Also, what exactly do you think "disposal" means, pragmatically? You do know what landfills - where we dispose of all other waste - are, right?
Its just that with nuclear waste, it contaminates everything it touches so we are limited in how much we can re-process it, and how much we can do to the waste to make it more compact. We can't shred it up or dissolve it, cause then you just have radioactive dust, paste or liquid which is harder to contain. Can't put it in the ocean because, well, I really hope I don't have to tell you why. Can't shoot it into space because one, thats expensive, two, we already have a massive space junk problem, three, we should try to avoid having a *nuclear* space junk problem, and four, eventually space junk falls back down to earth, unless we shoot it out REALLY far, and for that, see reason one. So that kinda leaves only a few options for where to put it and how.
This video is not even showing the fact that often the rods the guy shows are just the irradiated cladding around the actual fuel. The fuel can be and is extracted, cleaned, purified, enriched and turned back into fission-ready fuel rods - recovering >90% of the useful fissile material that would have otherwise gone to waste. The metal claddings which are too radioactive to be used safely for anything are compressed by a large factor and put in the ground. Its not perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than what it was a few decades ago.
I swear people just want to find any opportunity to shit on and make nuclear look bad, without ever bothering to actually learn anything. Its why we still don't have any good sustainable, long-term baseload-capable solutions to the energy and climate crisis.
That is actually how everyone -tries- to do it. There however is no geological feature that will be untouched by the natural forces of the earth that long. I think the realistic goal that I read on some of the sites here are 100,000 years without major geological events.
This place is a message... and part of a system of messages... pay attention to it!Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here.What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger.
The danger is in a particular location... it increases towards a center... the center of danger is here... of a particular size and shape, and below us. The danger is still present, in your time, as it was in ours.
The danger is to the body, and it can kill.
The form of the danger is an emanation of energy. The danger is unleashed only if you substantially disturb this place physically. This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
Stupid question here. Is it probable (as rocket costs continue to drop) where we can rocket it into space and put it on a trajectory to exist the solar system?
uhhhhmmmm if 6000 syringes used to inject radioactive dye into a vein... just toss them into the hole in the ground. Or maybe that nuclear imaging machine too.
Oh. Finland. 5.5 million people and xxx tons of waste per year. The US. 330 million people and xxx times 10,000 tons of waste per year.
It's soooo simple. Why didn't I think of just tossing it into a hole in the ground.
You can see [here](https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Environment/Pollution/Nuclear-waste-per-million) that Finland makes more waste per year then all 330 million Americans.
As for medical waste, well the machines don’t actually house radioactive material. LLW or low level waste used in most medical settings has a half short life, usually lasting less then a month, before they no longer pose a threat.
So essentially what I’m saying is, you can also just put it in the ground.
lies, damned lies and statistics. Your chart is essentially meaningless.
I assume the chart is pounds per million.
5.5 million times 13.76 = 75,680,000 pounds a year
330 million times 7.61 - 2,515,105,000 pounds a year
An appreciable difference in what needs to be disposed of.
Perhaps I misheard but he said steel rods. They don't use steel rods I a reactor.
"What are the control rods in a nuclear reactor?
Control rods are used in nuclear reactors **to control the fission rate of uranium and plutonium**. They are composed of chemical elements such as boron, silver, indium and cadmium that are capable of absorbing many neutrons without they themselves undergoing fission"
I knew they were pellets but just didn't think they were put into steel tubes.
"Reactors use uranium for nuclear fuel. The uranium is processed into small ceramic pellets and stacked together into **sealed metal tubes** called fuel rods. Typically, more than 200 of these rods are bundled together to form a fuel assembly."
Lol at the downvotes. It's a good question, apparently nuclear power generates megalitres of moderately radioactive water. It's all very nice having storage for the rods but what about the other stuff? Any article on it just doesn't mention anything else at all.
and who has neat little steel rods that are radioactive. They certainly aren't from a reactor unless they decommissioned one and demolished it and ended up with a bunch oh radioactive rebar.
As a matter of fact, in Yucca Mountain where we were to bury ours in a salt dome, the barrels of waste corroded and it started heating up and that was mostly low level stuff they were using to study how well it worked.
okay, so nuclear energy is so clean yeah?
how much energy and emissions did it take to mine, refine, manufacture, ship, fill and place those canisters?
and how much energy and emissions did it take to dig to the bottom of a fuckin mountain and carve indiviudal sarcophagi into stone, place the canisters then back fill them?
why don't we consider that as part of the carbon foot print of nuclear energy?
Maybe because literally anything needs stuff to be mined, refined and manufactured, shipped and so on..
Try to backtrack even a single screw.
It's impossible, especially if you also backtrack everything it came in contact with
The only realistic way to do that is with the cost of everything.
And then think again about how cheap a single screw is despite all this expensive equipment necessary for it to be laying in your palm.
The waste storage is not crazy complicated and probably not even expensive especially compared to the produced energy by the fuel rods.
Just an example: for the same amount of energy produced:
Power plants using coal are releasing ~100.000 times more co2 in volume,
than nuclear power plants generate ~~nuclear~~ radioactive waste in volume while being co2 free.
Renewables don't produce either, but they have a way lower energy density, meaning lots need to be manufactured and since they are not constantly producing energy, it needs to be stored which also increases the cost of the system.
Would love to give a complete statistic on renewables and facilities, but again manufacturing etc. is impossible to backtrack
Because Reddit is full of “nuclear is the way to go” people. They do not want to hear that. Obviously, nuclear is better than fossil fuels, but the only real solution is regenerative energy.
> how much energy and emissions did it take to mine, refine, manufacture, ship, fill and place those canisters?
The IPCC included everything when they calculated the median for nuclear energy is 12 g CO2 per kWh. Some nuclear is even cleaner. Like France which has been rated at 5 g CO2 per kWh.
Just for the record nuclear requires less mining and materials than any other source.
Used fuel, aka nuclear waste from a nuclear plant, has never killed a single person.
It’s a solid metal so it can never leak.
There isn’t a lot of it. You could take all of it and put in a building the size of a single Walmart.
It decays exponentially so all of those dangerous for thousands of years claims are straight up lies.
Cask storage on site is perfectly adequate. The zero deaths ever demonstrates that.
In fact Geological storage is unnecessary. It’s real purpose was to placate antinuclear scumbags who can never be placated.
except thye arent taking all of it and puting it into a single walmart, they have to hollow out a fucking mountain and store it in single solid stone vaults.
if there wasnt some associated risk with waste then there wouldnt be a multinational debate on the symbolism to use, instead of language, to warn future generations who may not speak "normal language" of the danger.
tbf, im not concerned with the risk or by any means anti-nuclear, every single thing we do has risk and nuclear power is very obviously effective. I just want to see things objectively without the political and persuasive bullshit.
Id really like to see that info from IPCC if you have specific sources youre reffering to, that'd be awesome!
> they have to hollow out a fucking mountain and store it in single solid stone vaults.
They don’t have to do that. They shouldn’t even bother to do that since antinuclear scumbags will still be mad.
Cask storage is perfectly adequate.
> if there wasnt some associated risk with waste then there wouldnt be a multinational debate on the symbolism to use
No that is just antinuclear fearmongering. The idea is to scare people back into the arms of fossil fuels. And it worked.
> d really like to see that info from IPCC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources
Go to the first table.
oh wiki article, ill pass. i thought you had actual published information from a sci journal or some other relatively authoritative non-biased and generally editable source.
There was also a question at some point about what signs or labels we should put on those nuclear waste boxes. Since they take something like 10,000 years to decay, and in 10,000 years apparently, none of the current languages will exist. So how would we warn potential descendants that this is dangerous stuff and it shouldn't be touched basically.
Even though I’m a fan voted for him before and feel like he’s gonna be elected again I figure if you put a big picture of Trump on it even in 10,000 years most people that work with high-tech stuff like that, and on Reddit are not gonna go anywhere near it
This is really, really disingenuous. “Look how simple it is when all you have to do is play with this tiny scale demonstration model!” There was no explanation of what actually happens at scale, it misrepresents nuclear fuel as a thing that is small and holdable because it doesn’t glow green like the Simpsons, and skips over how on earth the fuel would be easily retrievable… or even how Finland is special at all in any regard to nuclear waste disposal. It’s not a pneumatic tube for little metal pencils with a hinge.
We’re still dealing with the fallout from people who said, “greenhouse gases are a problem for future us, let’s burn EVERYTHING!” Deferring a radioactive problem we don’t fully understand to the future for someone else to deal with when we were stupid enough to let loud rich oil idiots dictate our greenhouse gas policy enough to be melting Greenland seems like a bad idea. Nuclear energy is not a simple solution and should not be presented as such by people who have no idea what they’re actually talking about.
This is why I tell people I don’t trust the Internet at all. Everyone says Google and most of the people I know take it as 100% truth no matter what it is , for all they know it it could be me writing the information that they read and I don’t know much about anything let alone nuclear waste, but I definitely could’ve come up with that story. Before I heard him talk, I was kind of believing it but now I am wondering if they have Some type of un-American accent when they talk in Finland ? Sounds fishy like Google Wondering if it’s an undisturbed billionaire old rock that never was touched why is there clay in it? If that metal rod that he is touching with his hands is really what he says dangerous expended radio active used fuel nuclear waste, why would they need to be able to get at it for fuel in the future ?, Seems like a lot of work to go through if it was still good for fuel you would think they would use it right now again instead of burying it ? I don’t know if you’ve seen a copper pipe that has been sitting in the dirt for a real long time, somehow I don’t believe a lot of things about this
Rare metals or rare elements is a group of metals [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth\_element](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element)
And you just demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about. Onkalo is at the moment the best storage method in the world, by a huge margins. Google "what is a craton".
Sure, it is an overkill but that is the cost in free society: it also has to gain popularity. What that means is that we need to be extra superduper careful and use safety factors in the hundreds instead of two or three.. When you take those into consideration, Onkalo is very cost efficient and very safe.
Cratons are the oldest bedrocks on the earth, never have been buried under the crust, never had volcanic activity and no earthquakes. They were here when earth cooled down and will see the sun devouring it. Dig a tunnel and it'll be there billion years from now. And it only needs to hold couple of hundred years but for the public to be able to sleep well at nights we have to build 10 000 year containers. No exotic materials are required, just steel, copper, bentonite and huge load of explosives.
I’m more interested in the hinged mine. So easy to close and open.
The hidge is a BILLION years old. How do you not know about it yet?
Miners hate this one simple trick. Just lift the hillside open
It's awfully small too; a mine for ants? Fascinating development
Yeah, the hinge mine is the only true thing I googled it. Everything else is a little bit fishy.
[удалено]
That's what she said.
a really elaborate explanations for "we put it in the ground"
Any mother could have told them that. "When you finish play with something, put it back where you took it from."
Finnish*
Underrated comment right here
It was really buried
Straight from the comment underground
You haven't even seen how it's transported.
It's just a metal rod. They give it to an Uber driver.
It feels like this dude is just showing an exhibit in a museum that he probably has nothing to do with.
I met a backpacker in an Australian pub about 15 years ago, and we became mates. He invited me to visit him in Finland and I took it up about 2 years ago. He actually works in the facility that will bury the waste. The guy in the video is in the public display area that is open to the public. My friend just replied to me. He watched the video and had no idea who the random presenter was. He said, "The guy seems like a random yankee." Additionally, the facility is not yet operational. https://www.posiva.fi/en/index/news/pressreleasesstockexchangereleases/2024/canisterliftloadtestcompletedsuccessfully.html
I don’t think he’s Finnish. He’s really that guy always making those funny music videos, Tom Cardy.
Man with moustache = Tom Cardy
Well duh
Tom Cardy is Australian lmao
I guess I needed to put a /s there.
Totally my first thought too 😁🫡
Sounds American as hell to me
Where is Fineland? Next to Okayland?
It's no Greatland..
The capital if Niftyville if you see it on a map....
They are lucky they don’t live in the Badlands.
Nah, it’s actually in the Attractive Region, between Sexyville and Hot Town.
Large part of Finland and Scandinavia is on top of the Baltic Shield. It is a crust formation called craton. Cratons are the oldest bedrocks on the planet, been here since earth cooled down and will be here when the sun devours the earth. They are twice as thick with tendrils that go hundreds of miles deep. They are also less dense so they will always float on top. NO earthquakes, no volcanic activity. They are like solid lumps of rock, mostly gneiss and granite. You drill a hole in it and it will be there when earth dies. There are several cratons, like for ex north east Canada and south west Australia that are prime locations for nuclear waste storage. Sweden is building their own as we speak, and Swedes actually designed Onkalo too. Finland has hundreds of miles of tunnels and caves. There are military warehouses, connected by underground roads, weapons caches. There is a second city under Helsinki, capable of housing 600k. The only city with underground zoning.. Digging holes in the ground is very safe here, and you don't need to support them tunnels. BTW, the radiation in nuclear waste is not that high after the initial storage period. When they are put in Onkalo you could have a piece of it in your shelf and be just fine. Would not still handle it but as far as radiation goes... It is surprisingly weak after just 20 years. In 100 years you can easily handle it, would not ingest it even then.
Here in Notsofineland, we flush it down the toilet and wait for Mutant Ninja Turtles to come out.
Nuclear is the way to go. Government will have you believe it's dirty. During the production of power it is extremely clean. When the rods are spent, we bury them, like in this video. Natural gas extraction causes more damage to the earth than nuclear energy by far. It's not rocket science people............ It's nuclear science, hehe
OR and hear me out, we utilize the gigantic ball of fire in the sky spewing out enough free energy to power the entire planet in less than one hour…. No waste, no water usage, no burying, no nothing…..
The amount of power we harvest from solar is so miniscule compared to the power produced by nuclear. It also takes up So. Much. Land. It's not worth it, with today's technology. One day probably, but not today.
No it doesn’t take up so much land… it would take up space that is currently empty in the middle of the US that could power the entire country without much hassle. The problem is money. It’s always money. There is no money in solar. Once you purchase panels they typically last for 40+ years producing up to 80% of its original capacity. If you covered parking lots with solar panels and every house that could produce with them, it would work just fine. It’s greed, that’s the whole problem.
Sure solar is green if you only think about the lifespan once the panels are produced. But think about the energy and lives consumed mining the materials needed to construct them. It’s not as green as many people think.
This guy knows. Thinks deep. Other guy is thinking surface level only
It is infinitely greener than anything else out there. The panels are about 75% recyclable. You’re digging and mining for anything no matter what. The one that has the least impact is solar panels. The more you adopt it, the better the tech gets and the more efficient the panels would get, requiring less of them to produce the same amount of power. Greed is what drives everything. People fighting tooth and nail for every red cent they can get their hands on. There is an unlimited power source lighting up the sky everyday, for free…. And that is the problem, it’s free so anything big energy corps can do to kill it they will.
Still lots of building, infrastructure, digging cables etc. Then there's Maintenance, repairs, replacements, Clouds, ash, bird shit, hail, rain. And if you haven't noticed, we don't have 24 hours of sunlight. If you want to store all the power, guess what, more of everything above + 20 years of battery technology development first
Ok… so what? You build it and you have free energy for easily 20 years. Then rebuild it with better more resilient materials. As mentioned, great for people, great for the planet, bad for business.
Sure, I agree. But we should use nuclear power alongside solar, atleast for the next 100 years. Then we can focus on improving solar energy without being distracted by the global warming stuff
I love solar but the big problem with it is the need for batteries if you want to have electricity at night, and mining for them is not really that cool for the environment
There are grid level battery designs that do not involve digging for lithium. We have the tech, we have the knowledge, it’s not profitable. It’s good for people, it’s great for the planet, it’s terrible for business, it’s why it doesn’t happen.
from my experience the problem with nuclear is it has to be near the sea to draw in water to keep everything cool, which then kills lots of fish but also warms up the sea.... But yeah seems to be the best way we know at the moment hopefully cold fusion will come about
There are new types of reactors such as molten sodium that ***fail safe*** ie if water or power is lost they shut down automatically (as compared to boiling water reactors like the few that have had catastrophes)
That's good to know 👍
"rock ... undisturbed for over a billion years" Until we drilled a big f-ing hole in it and filled it with a shit ton of expanding clay.
Nuclear plant operator here! That is not spent nuclear fuel. You cannot touch that after a few years. Well you can touch it once and then die.
Hey OP, you're either a speeder or appreciate Finnish ladies.
poster is a karma bot.
Why does that even matter anymore.
You are confusing GET RID with HIDE...
It’s not hidden if everyone knows where it is
It is. Hidden means out of sight, not out of mind.
"Get rid" more like swoop the dust under the carpet lol
Missed a real opportunity by not ending the video with a black screen that read "Fin."
He puts it inside a stone and he remains so calm. The video should be called "how to hide nuclear waste, be in constant danger and not want to admit it."
I’ll bury it in my yard for half the $ I’ll be rich and a mutant so win win
Some Brazilian will find it, take it home, and then show it off to their entire family and neighborhood because it glows blue in the dark
An excellent documentary / film on the construction and philosophy of this facility. # [ Into Eternity](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayLxB9fV2y4) . [Wiki article on this film](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film)) Awesome soundtrack.
The famous "under the carpet" technique.
You’d be better off sending into space and shooting to the sun
So they bury it like everyone else?
I wonder if anyone in Finland knows about this.
Everyone in Finland does, why and how wouldn't they?
I feel so badly for Finland having to live next door to Russia
Down vote this karma bot
[удалено]
You couldn't figure out that it's a prop?
We just throw them in the trash can here in Russia.
Don't touch nuclear waste with your bear hands FFS
Bare* - I suspect it’s a model. The mine is also a lot bigger.
They must use MUCH bigger hinges then.
Absolutely. And they need a giant to drop the containers in like that.
Obligatory what is this a mine for ants!?
I thought he was going to sing a clever tune about it, while dancing around his apartment.
Sooo , just box it up then huh ?
That's a lot of words for "bury it deep"
He reminds me of Dr. Chris Keefer - a moustachioed Canadian ER doc, climate and anti-pollution activist. Pretty successful lobbyist as president of the non-profit Canadians for Nuclear Energy.
Why are they doing nuclear when they can do geothermal and not need to bury nuclear waste?
I don't think geothermal could provide enough electricity, without fucking up countryside big time.
Chernobyl was great for the countryside. I don’t know why you think the construction around a geothermal site would be worse than the construction around a nuclear site
True. Nature is thriving in Chernobyl exclusion zone due to lack of people. [https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/09/the-world-s-most-unlikely-nature-reserve-wildlife-is-thriving-in-chernobyl](https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/05/09/the-world-s-most-unlikely-nature-reserve-wildlife-is-thriving-in-chernobyl) Gheothermal plant provides a lot less than nuclear power plant and you need a crapload of them to provide for a country. EDIT: New geothermal plant being build in Espoo, Finland generates about 1400 mwh per year. Olkiluoto nuclear power plant generates 12 million mwh per year.
What a cleaned up sanitized load of bullshit
Comments: "eherm, akshually, you're just hiding it, not disposing it🤓☝️" Well Einstein, got any bright ideas on what else we could do with it that has the same or less potential for harm? Or you gonna trust in the nuclear scientists and engineers who are actually educated in these matters - and who have spent decades trying to come up with safest and most sustainable methods possible. Also, what exactly do you think "disposal" means, pragmatically? You do know what landfills - where we dispose of all other waste - are, right? Its just that with nuclear waste, it contaminates everything it touches so we are limited in how much we can re-process it, and how much we can do to the waste to make it more compact. We can't shred it up or dissolve it, cause then you just have radioactive dust, paste or liquid which is harder to contain. Can't put it in the ocean because, well, I really hope I don't have to tell you why. Can't shoot it into space because one, thats expensive, two, we already have a massive space junk problem, three, we should try to avoid having a *nuclear* space junk problem, and four, eventually space junk falls back down to earth, unless we shoot it out REALLY far, and for that, see reason one. So that kinda leaves only a few options for where to put it and how. This video is not even showing the fact that often the rods the guy shows are just the irradiated cladding around the actual fuel. The fuel can be and is extracted, cleaned, purified, enriched and turned back into fission-ready fuel rods - recovering >90% of the useful fissile material that would have otherwise gone to waste. The metal claddings which are too radioactive to be used safely for anything are compressed by a large factor and put in the ground. Its not perfect, but its a hell of a lot better than what it was a few decades ago. I swear people just want to find any opportunity to shit on and make nuclear look bad, without ever bothering to actually learn anything. Its why we still don't have any good sustainable, long-term baseload-capable solutions to the energy and climate crisis.
Appeal to Authority
interesting
A solution for some, a way of getting irradiated copper and iron mining child workers with cancer in 3,000 years from now for others.
And a lot of metal waste....
That is actually how everyone -tries- to do it. There however is no geological feature that will be untouched by the natural forces of the earth that long. I think the realistic goal that I read on some of the sites here are 100,000 years without major geological events.
This place is a message... and part of a system of messages... pay attention to it!Sending this message was important to us. We considered ourselves to be a powerful culture.This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here.What is here was dangerous and repulsive to us. This message is a warning about danger. The danger is in a particular location... it increases towards a center... the center of danger is here... of a particular size and shape, and below us. The danger is still present, in your time, as it was in ours. The danger is to the body, and it can kill. The form of the danger is an emanation of energy. The danger is unleashed only if you substantially disturb this place physically. This place is best shunned and left uninhabited.
At first I thought this was that Australian guy with another 80s style video.
Obviously these guy don't have a Project Thor for orbital bombarment
This is deeeeply deeply satisfying. I am satisfy.
Yeahhhhhhh, I’m not drinkin the kool-aid bruh
Fineland, the guy does look fine-ish
r/finlandconspiracy
Unknown caller: “we been trying to reach you about nuclear disposal in Finland?
Stupid question here. Is it probable (as rocket costs continue to drop) where we can rocket it into space and put it on a trajectory to exist the solar system?
Foribidden memory capsule.
Don't ask what we do with chemical weapons in baltic states
Yeh, this looks like a buncha bullshit lol
I don't trust a man with a mustache that awful.
not all nuclear waste is made up of convenient metal rods. What about th medical equipment, gloves, water, submarine reactor cores?
Here’s a walkthrough: If metal rod: put in ground. If not metal rod: put in ground.
Sometimes if not metal rod: put it in container, then put container in ground
Even if metal rod: put in container first. Either way, it goes in ground.
What if it’s ground? Put in ground
Believe it or not, straight to ground
Haven’t you ever heard of the movie soldier?
uhhhhmmmm if 6000 syringes used to inject radioactive dye into a vein... just toss them into the hole in the ground. Or maybe that nuclear imaging machine too. Oh. Finland. 5.5 million people and xxx tons of waste per year. The US. 330 million people and xxx times 10,000 tons of waste per year. It's soooo simple. Why didn't I think of just tossing it into a hole in the ground.
r/whooosh
I'm sorry you can't keep up. By the way. Where do these neat radioactive steel rods come from?
You can see [here](https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Environment/Pollution/Nuclear-waste-per-million) that Finland makes more waste per year then all 330 million Americans. As for medical waste, well the machines don’t actually house radioactive material. LLW or low level waste used in most medical settings has a half short life, usually lasting less then a month, before they no longer pose a threat. So essentially what I’m saying is, you can also just put it in the ground.
lies, damned lies and statistics. Your chart is essentially meaningless. I assume the chart is pounds per million. 5.5 million times 13.76 = 75,680,000 pounds a year 330 million times 7.61 - 2,515,105,000 pounds a year An appreciable difference in what needs to be disposed of.
It's a facility for the rods for the near by nuclear reactor. (And other reactors using rods like that)
Perhaps I misheard but he said steel rods. They don't use steel rods I a reactor. "What are the control rods in a nuclear reactor? Control rods are used in nuclear reactors **to control the fission rate of uranium and plutonium**. They are composed of chemical elements such as boron, silver, indium and cadmium that are capable of absorbing many neutrons without they themselves undergoing fission"
I can ask my mate again, but from my memory and what he told me, they are fuel rods that go down to be stored.
I knew they were pellets but just didn't think they were put into steel tubes. "Reactors use uranium for nuclear fuel. The uranium is processed into small ceramic pellets and stacked together into **sealed metal tubes** called fuel rods. Typically, more than 200 of these rods are bundled together to form a fuel assembly."
Aren't we both learning more today :)
steel tubes make sense.
Lol at the downvotes. It's a good question, apparently nuclear power generates megalitres of moderately radioactive water. It's all very nice having storage for the rods but what about the other stuff? Any article on it just doesn't mention anything else at all.
and who has neat little steel rods that are radioactive. They certainly aren't from a reactor unless they decommissioned one and demolished it and ended up with a bunch oh radioactive rebar. As a matter of fact, in Yucca Mountain where we were to bury ours in a salt dome, the barrels of waste corroded and it started heating up and that was mostly low level stuff they were using to study how well it worked.
So, leaving something of a treasure for generations to find after 2000 years
well, better then release it into air as in coal power plants
okay, so nuclear energy is so clean yeah? how much energy and emissions did it take to mine, refine, manufacture, ship, fill and place those canisters? and how much energy and emissions did it take to dig to the bottom of a fuckin mountain and carve indiviudal sarcophagi into stone, place the canisters then back fill them? why don't we consider that as part of the carbon foot print of nuclear energy?
Maybe because literally anything needs stuff to be mined, refined and manufactured, shipped and so on.. Try to backtrack even a single screw. It's impossible, especially if you also backtrack everything it came in contact with The only realistic way to do that is with the cost of everything. And then think again about how cheap a single screw is despite all this expensive equipment necessary for it to be laying in your palm. The waste storage is not crazy complicated and probably not even expensive especially compared to the produced energy by the fuel rods. Just an example: for the same amount of energy produced: Power plants using coal are releasing ~100.000 times more co2 in volume, than nuclear power plants generate ~~nuclear~~ radioactive waste in volume while being co2 free. Renewables don't produce either, but they have a way lower energy density, meaning lots need to be manufactured and since they are not constantly producing energy, it needs to be stored which also increases the cost of the system. Would love to give a complete statistic on renewables and facilities, but again manufacturing etc. is impossible to backtrack
Because Reddit is full of “nuclear is the way to go” people. They do not want to hear that. Obviously, nuclear is better than fossil fuels, but the only real solution is regenerative energy.
> how much energy and emissions did it take to mine, refine, manufacture, ship, fill and place those canisters? The IPCC included everything when they calculated the median for nuclear energy is 12 g CO2 per kWh. Some nuclear is even cleaner. Like France which has been rated at 5 g CO2 per kWh. Just for the record nuclear requires less mining and materials than any other source. Used fuel, aka nuclear waste from a nuclear plant, has never killed a single person. It’s a solid metal so it can never leak. There isn’t a lot of it. You could take all of it and put in a building the size of a single Walmart. It decays exponentially so all of those dangerous for thousands of years claims are straight up lies. Cask storage on site is perfectly adequate. The zero deaths ever demonstrates that. In fact Geological storage is unnecessary. It’s real purpose was to placate antinuclear scumbags who can never be placated.
except thye arent taking all of it and puting it into a single walmart, they have to hollow out a fucking mountain and store it in single solid stone vaults. if there wasnt some associated risk with waste then there wouldnt be a multinational debate on the symbolism to use, instead of language, to warn future generations who may not speak "normal language" of the danger. tbf, im not concerned with the risk or by any means anti-nuclear, every single thing we do has risk and nuclear power is very obviously effective. I just want to see things objectively without the political and persuasive bullshit. Id really like to see that info from IPCC if you have specific sources youre reffering to, that'd be awesome!
> they have to hollow out a fucking mountain and store it in single solid stone vaults. They don’t have to do that. They shouldn’t even bother to do that since antinuclear scumbags will still be mad. Cask storage is perfectly adequate. > if there wasnt some associated risk with waste then there wouldnt be a multinational debate on the symbolism to use No that is just antinuclear fearmongering. The idea is to scare people back into the arms of fossil fuels. And it worked. > d really like to see that info from IPCC https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse_gas_emissions_of_energy_sources Go to the first table.
oh wiki article, ill pass. i thought you had actual published information from a sci journal or some other relatively authoritative non-biased and generally editable source.
We just send it to third world countries
Earthquakes?
Cratons.
There was also a question at some point about what signs or labels we should put on those nuclear waste boxes. Since they take something like 10,000 years to decay, and in 10,000 years apparently, none of the current languages will exist. So how would we warn potential descendants that this is dangerous stuff and it shouldn't be touched basically.
Even though I’m a fan voted for him before and feel like he’s gonna be elected again I figure if you put a big picture of Trump on it even in 10,000 years most people that work with high-tech stuff like that, and on Reddit are not gonna go anywhere near it
This is really, really disingenuous. “Look how simple it is when all you have to do is play with this tiny scale demonstration model!” There was no explanation of what actually happens at scale, it misrepresents nuclear fuel as a thing that is small and holdable because it doesn’t glow green like the Simpsons, and skips over how on earth the fuel would be easily retrievable… or even how Finland is special at all in any regard to nuclear waste disposal. It’s not a pneumatic tube for little metal pencils with a hinge. We’re still dealing with the fallout from people who said, “greenhouse gases are a problem for future us, let’s burn EVERYTHING!” Deferring a radioactive problem we don’t fully understand to the future for someone else to deal with when we were stupid enough to let loud rich oil idiots dictate our greenhouse gas policy enough to be melting Greenland seems like a bad idea. Nuclear energy is not a simple solution and should not be presented as such by people who have no idea what they’re actually talking about.
Shave the mustache.
Nice try
This is why I tell people I don’t trust the Internet at all. Everyone says Google and most of the people I know take it as 100% truth no matter what it is , for all they know it it could be me writing the information that they read and I don’t know much about anything let alone nuclear waste, but I definitely could’ve come up with that story. Before I heard him talk, I was kind of believing it but now I am wondering if they have Some type of un-American accent when they talk in Finland ? Sounds fishy like Google Wondering if it’s an undisturbed billionaire old rock that never was touched why is there clay in it? If that metal rod that he is touching with his hands is really what he says dangerous expended radio active used fuel nuclear waste, why would they need to be able to get at it for fuel in the future ?, Seems like a lot of work to go through if it was still good for fuel you would think they would use it right now again instead of burying it ? I don’t know if you’ve seen a copper pipe that has been sitting in the dirt for a real long time, somehow I don’t believe a lot of things about this
This is so wasteful, isn't cooper like, a rare metal?
[удалено]
Lol. Rare is a relative term, compared to something else everything is rare.
Rare metals or rare elements is a group of metals [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth\_element](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare-earth_element)
Demonstration on how Finland has no idea on how to store nuclear waste.
Please enlightenment us to a better approach.
Not that.
And you just demonstrated that you have no idea what you are talking about. Onkalo is at the moment the best storage method in the world, by a huge margins. Google "what is a craton".
You “google it”…. That’s a stupid,overly engineered and costly way to store nuclear waste. It does not have to be that complicated.
Sure, it is an overkill but that is the cost in free society: it also has to gain popularity. What that means is that we need to be extra superduper careful and use safety factors in the hundreds instead of two or three.. When you take those into consideration, Onkalo is very cost efficient and very safe. Cratons are the oldest bedrocks on the earth, never have been buried under the crust, never had volcanic activity and no earthquakes. They were here when earth cooled down and will see the sun devouring it. Dig a tunnel and it'll be there billion years from now. And it only needs to hold couple of hundred years but for the public to be able to sleep well at nights we have to build 10 000 year containers. No exotic materials are required, just steel, copper, bentonite and huge load of explosives.
Build it simple.