Posted by Rob Kleinschmidt on September 16, 2009, 10:35 am
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> >> Bob Myers wrote:
> >>> I think Rob's point was - it's not the sun or the subduction
> >>> zone that's the concern. Either would happily swallow all
> >>> of the nuclear waste we'd want to deliver to them. But
> >>> somehow, you DO have to deliver the stuff to those places with
> >>> essentially 100% safety & reliability. At the present state of the
> >>> technologies involved, I for one don't see that happening.
> >> I don't see any problem with reliably dropping something into the
> >> ocean. And if a container misses, so what? We have several dead
> >> submarines on the bottom and nothing horrible has happened.
> > That's essentially all that you're doing though. You're
> > dropping stuff into the ocean where it's out of sight.
> Where it's out of sight and eventually is going to be hundreds of miles deep
> in the mantle.
> > It's dishonest to kid yourself into believing that subduction
> > is moving things any significant distance in the timeframes
> > you're interested in.
> What timeframes do you believe those to be?
The initial Yucca mountain specs were talking about
IIRC, 10,000 years. That might work out to one or two
hundred meters or so of subduction movement. Not very
useful.
What kind of timeframes did you have in mind ?
If longer than 10,000 years, what do you do for the
first few tens of thousands of years while you wait
for subduction to move your waste material ?
Posted by J. Clarke on September 16, 2009, 3:51 pm
Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
>>>> Bob Myers wrote:
>>
>>>>> I think Rob's point was - it's not the sun or the subduction
>>>>> zone that's the concern. Either would happily swallow all
>>>>> of the nuclear waste we'd want to deliver to them. But
>>>>> somehow, you DO have to deliver the stuff to those places with
>>>>> essentially 100% safety & reliability. At the present state of the
>>>>> technologies involved, I for one don't see that happening.
>>
>>>> I don't see any problem with reliably dropping something into the
>>>> ocean. And if a container misses, so what? We have several dead
>>>> submarines on the bottom and nothing horrible has happened.
>>
>>> That's essentially all that you're doing though. You're
>>> dropping stuff into the ocean where it's out of sight.
>>
>> Where it's out of sight and eventually is going to be hundreds of
>> miles deep in the mantle.
>>
>>> It's dishonest to kid yourself into believing that subduction
>>> is moving things any significant distance in the timeframes
>>> you're interested in.
>>
>> What timeframes do you believe those to be?
> The initial Yucca mountain specs were talking about
> IIRC, 10,000 years. That might work out to one or two
> hundred meters or so of subduction movement. Not very
> useful.
It's around a kilometer, and that is _half_ of the half-life of plutonium.
> What kind of timeframes did you have in mind ?
> If longer than 10,000 years, what do you do for the
> first few tens of thousands of years while you wait
> for subduction to move your waste material ?
The same thing you do for the remaining millions of years. What do you
think is going to happen to radioactive waste sitting on the bottom of a
deep ocean trench that requires that one "do something"?
Posted by turby on September 16, 2009, 4:16 pm
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> >> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> >>>> Bob Myers wrote:
> >>>>> I think Rob's point was - it's not the sun or the subduction
> >>>>> zone that's the concern. Either would happily swallow all
> >>>>> of the nuclear waste we'd want to deliver to them. But
> >>>>> somehow, you DO have to deliver the stuff to those places with
> >>>>> essentially 100% safety & reliability. At the present state of the
> >>>>> technologies involved, I for one don't see that happening.
> >>>> I don't see any problem with reliably dropping something into the
> >>>> ocean. And if a container misses, so what? We have several dead
> >>>> submarines on the bottom and nothing horrible has happened.
> >>> That's essentially all that you're doing though. You're
> >>> dropping stuff into the ocean where it's out of sight.
> >> Where it's out of sight and eventually is going to be hundreds of
> >> miles deep in the mantle.
> >>> It's dishonest to kid yourself into believing that subduction
> >>> is moving things any significant distance in the timeframes
> >>> you're interested in.
> >> What timeframes do you believe those to be?
> > The initial Yucca mountain specs were talking about
> > IIRC, 10,000 years. That might work out to one or two
> > hundred meters or so of subduction movement. Not very
> > useful.
> It's around a kilometer, and that is _half_ of the half-life of plutonium.
> > What kind of timeframes did you have in mind ?
> > If longer than 10,000 years, what do you do for the
> > first few tens of thousands of years while you wait
> > for subduction to move your waste material ?
> The same thing you do for the remaining millions of years. What do you
> think is going to happen to radioactive waste sitting on the bottom of a
> deep ocean trench that requires that one "do something"?
The requirement that one "do something" comes before it is deposited
on the ocean floor. Considering man's ability to screw up virtually
everything he does, it's not unlikely that the containers he puts the
waste in will fail at some point. Look up "thermohaline circulation"
and you'll see that the water on the ocean floor comes to the surface
and moves around the globe in a never-ending cycle. The bottom of the
ocean ain't as remote as many think.
Posted by Rob Kleinschmidt on September 16, 2009, 4:32 pm
> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> >> Rob Kleinschmidt wrote:
> >>>> Bob Myers wrote:
> >>>>> I think Rob's point was - it's not the sun or the subduction
> >>>>> zone that's the concern. Either would happily swallow all
> >>>>> of the nuclear waste we'd want to deliver to them. But
> >>>>> somehow, you DO have to deliver the stuff to those places with
> >>>>> essentially 100% safety & reliability. At the present state of the
> >>>>> technologies involved, I for one don't see that happening.
> >>>> I don't see any problem with reliably dropping something into the
> >>>> ocean. And if a container misses, so what? We have several dead
> >>>> submarines on the bottom and nothing horrible has happened.
> >>> That's essentially all that you're doing though. You're
> >>> dropping stuff into the ocean where it's out of sight.
> >> Where it's out of sight and eventually is going to be hundreds of
> >> miles deep in the mantle.
> >>> It's dishonest to kid yourself into believing that subduction
> >>> is moving things any significant distance in the timeframes
> >>> you're interested in.
> >> What timeframes do you believe those to be?
> > The initial Yucca mountain specs were talking about
> > IIRC, 10,000 years. That might work out to one or two
> > hundred meters or so of subduction movement. Not very
> > useful.
> It's around a kilometer, and that is _half_ of the half-life of plutonium.
1 km = 100 000 centimeters = 10 cm/yr = ~4 inches of
motion/yearly, which is a very extreme amount of motion.
Still not very useful for the first few millenia.
> > What kind of timeframes did you have in mind ?
> > If longer than 10,000 years, what do you do for the
> > first few tens of thousands of years while you wait
> > for subduction to move your waste material ?
> The same thing you do for the remaining millions of years. What do you
> think is going to happen to radioactive waste sitting on the bottom of a
> deep ocean trench that requires that one "do something"?
My point being that "rapid subduction" is total bullshit.
The described solution is really "dump it in the ocean
and forget about it and maybe in a few thousand years
it'll go away".
Posted by turby on September 16, 2009, 12:17 pm
> Also, you're not just talking about a drill hole. You're
> talking about a facility for storing casks of waste.
> They've spent a couple decades trying to get Yucca
> Mountain right and haven't been very successful.
> What in the world makes you think they'd do better
> working at the bottom of the ocean ?
It's also assuming there is no corrosion or leakage. That water at the
bottom of the ocean doesn't just sit there. There are deep sea
currents and all the world's water is continually moving around the
world, from top to bottom.
> >> Bob Myers wrote:
> >>> I think Rob's point was - it's not the sun or the subduction
> >>> zone that's the concern. Either would happily swallow all
> >>> of the nuclear waste we'd want to deliver to them. But
> >>> somehow, you DO have to deliver the stuff to those places with
> >>> essentially 100% safety & reliability. At the present state of the
> >>> technologies involved, I for one don't see that happening.
> >> I don't see any problem with reliably dropping something into the
> >> ocean. And if a container misses, so what? We have several dead
> >> submarines on the bottom and nothing horrible has happened.
> > That's essentially all that you're doing though. You're
> > dropping stuff into the ocean where it's out of sight.
> Where it's out of sight and eventually is going to be hundreds of miles deep
> in the mantle.
> > It's dishonest to kid yourself into believing that subduction
> > is moving things any significant distance in the timeframes
> > you're interested in.
> What timeframes do you believe those to be?