Watch the movie Into Eternity

If there's something Finland has always been bad in, it's PR

@@mv_5878 100% disagree. its hard to find people who have a bad opinion on Finland, except Russian bots.

@@Alexandros.Mograine This development has happened during the last five years. In the course of the past 5 years Finland has got more publicity (particularly in Anglo media) than in the preceding 50 years altogether.

Those belong to russians, and finns don't like to cooperate with them 🤔

Cold fission finally achieved w magnets and vibration so nuclear reactors will not be needed.

You mean nuclear reprocessing (such as breeder?) Easy: Nuclear power has a reputation that is so bad that it damages the profit of the reactors. The more you invest, the more people will hate you. It’s easier to just build solar panels, Windparks and massive batteries.

part of the project was actually "how are we going to tell people in 50,000 years, or even 1,000 years, that there's danger here, not to dig farther down, and the purpose of this facility... Today it's hard for people to understand Ancient Roman, Latin and languages from 1,000 years ago, and in 10,000, or 50,000 people, or the residents of this planet, or whomever night find the site might not even know what an atom is anymore, and they had a thing where they proposed different methods to put signage when the site is full and burried for good, and one of them was "don't put any signs whatsoever because signs might tell people that there's something here and encourage them to dig"... i found that quite an interesting thought experiment...

@@tylerufen That is the least of our worries. Why worry about whether future people can read the warnings if all life on Earth is destroyed by man-made nuclear radioactive isotopes.

@@jackfanning7952 what?

@@tylerufen Admiral Rickover, Head of the U.S. Nuclear Navy said, "Billions of years ago, it was impossible to have life on Earth there was so much radiation from the formation of Earth. Gradually, over about 2 billion years, radiation has reduced to where life can exist. By splitting the atom, a horrible force is unleashed, recreating the poisons that precluded life from existing. I think the human race is going to wreck itself." Dr. John Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., who before Hanford, provided plutonium to Oppenheimer for the Manhattan Project, said, "low-dose ionizing radiation may turn out to be the MOST important single carcinogen to which huge numbers of humans are actually exposed. Over time, it could mean cancer inflicted on a hundred million or more humans." There may not be anyone around to read the signs.

its a damn cave bro. guess where we found the radioactive elements?

But if a poison goes bad/expires, does it become more or less deadly? 🧐

Thats the point i guesss ^^

Errr... No it won't. It'll just degrade and become inert eventually being a little brick of lead down a very deep foot wide hole (and that one hole is a plants whole lifespan of waste)

They should use the fusion reactor that we have been using since mankind came into being; the one 93,000.000 miles away that has been providing reliable power for free. thorium=U-233=nuclear=radioactive waste=death. And oh, so expensive.

Except it doesn't work half the day. Also, check where Finland is on the map 😝

@@vladyslavkorenyak872 The renewable share of the energy market in Finland in 2020 was 40.6%. Nuclear's share was 30% in 2019.

@@jackfanning7952 Have you looked at how those precious renewables are made? For just one item - you should know how the silica for the solar panels is created...or do you still think it's made from sand? It's not...too many impurities that way. If done that way, panels are too inefficient to even give initial ROI. So, what they do is they take coal (anthracite) and quartz, put them together in a furnace and melt both together...that furnace BTW, is a coal fired one. SO you're literally using coal to melt coal (and quartz)....yea, that's gotta be a better option.

@@Adam.Rushing Every other option for electrical energy is cleaner, safer, more efficient and 3-5 times less expensive than nuclear. That last reason is why nuclear is on the way out. Those gnomes on the top floor of the multinational financial institutions do not care any more about the death and environmental destruction caused by nuclear as the nukies do, but they don't like to lose money. They like reliable investments and a quick return on their investments. That leaves nuclear out.

Encased how they are in Solid rock that's been there for millions of years, so 10.000+ years is nothing in comparison, plus, once you understand the science it makes total sense and is the safest option.

@@CodeLeeCarter The rock may have been there for millions of years, but I don't think anyone can confidently say what corrosion might do to a giant copper cast for >100 000 years. Who's to say there isn't going to be an unforeseen change in environmental conditions, like oxygen content of the water. And if you're going to say the copper cast isn't the only barrier, then why are we burring tons of valuable copper in the ground.

@@jackwhite3820 Wasn't you listening to the Science?... sealed and Absence of Oxegen!

New technologies (fast breeders, reprocessing) are not new, very expensive, very unreliable, dangerous to operate and would take several centuries running 24/7 to make a dent in the amount of spent fuel currently in existence. That is contingent upon having an unlimited amount of money to invest in it and to try to keep it running. Good luck with that fantasy.

@@jackwhite3820 Finland has already discovered that copper is too susceptible to corrosion to use and is looking for another containment solution.

There remain 10B years' worth of uranium. It is not scarce.

On the plant site itself usually, in concrete or metal casks. Onkalo here iirc, is one of the first long term storage solutions.

I don't understand were this question is coming from. Were do you think we got the uranium? THE EARTH. Uranium. When it's spent, do you know how radioactive it is, in comparison to when we found it? I am guessing not. Here you go: "Depleted uranium is a by-product of enrichment of natural uranium to make nuclear fuel. It is less radioactive than naturally occurring uranium as it contains less of the fissionable material U-235." Around 40% less radioactive it seems. Still! We have rigorous systems in place on how to store it, in concrete etc, after it's spent. The radioactive material was once in the earth to begin with, but people get all upset when we put it back again, spent 40% less radioactive. Humans are weird.

@@molnarriki4876 It's less radioactive than natural uranium, after just 500 years.

Wouldn't the fact that 1kg of uranium produces 20000x the energy vs 1kg of coal make nuclear seem a good option? Like if those copper tubes can hold even just 50kg of waste, you'd need equivalent one million kilograms of coal. That's quite wasteful to dig up

Recycling the nuclear fuel helps cut down on the need for as much storage and mining.

The main cost associated with uranium-fired power is enrichment. Grand storage schemes are designed, because they cost essentially nothing.

Actually, only *_enrichment_* uses a significant about of energy. And all of that energy can be provided by uranium-fired power plants.

1. It's less radioactive than natural uranium, after 500 years. 2. You are radioactive (because you contain potassium).

This question has been asked and answered many times. I'll just poorly mention two points: a) How reliable are rocket launches? What if one of them fails and the stuff comes falling back to earth? I'll leave it up to your imagination. b) Counterintuitively you need much more "rocket power" to get something to the sun, than it is to actually send it out of the solar system.

Imagine that rocket burning up in the outer atmosphere if the second stage failed and spreading its contents around the globe. What a catastrophic clusterf*#k that would be. Sending it to space is about as unsafe an option as I can imagine.

All valid points, thanks. But I think that in a era when someone can send a car to Mars, this should be lesser problem.

@@andrecarvalho8679 Rockets explode more often than you think. Something like 1% or so. Thats way too much, it would be a much bigger disaster than Tschernobyl. If the car goes back to the ocean, thats no problem, but if highly radioactiv material bursts in billions of pieces, the whole earth would suffer. Its far too dangerous. A car is something quite different...

Cost. Space X, which has the lowest rates, charges $27,000 per lb to resupply the ISS. The rods would have to be encased which adds much more weight. It simply isn't cost effective and the risks are too high. Also, there is no reason to target the sun. Just aim for a void in space.

Nuclear power plants don't just mine uranium... They buy it

A coal plant in 2yrs creates the co2 of 20yrs of nuclear... And nuclear waste is much, much safer. Fossil fuel waste and emissions are highly toxic and problematic right now to everything. Nuclear waste done right with deep-geo storage... One foot wide hole will deal with a power plants entire lifespan of waste. And being fused into ceramic and glass prior to storage means its so beyond safe its insane.

By that rationale, wind and solar power aren't carbon free either.

@@SombreroPharoah nuclear waste is safe? Have you ever heard about chernobyl?

@@simonphoenix3789 it is important to point that also.

Actual radioactive waste is mostly just irradiated solvents and old hazmat suits. Spent fuel rods are reprocessed into other stuff. You can't use the things we bury for anything

All 26 plants on earth can fit their waste with deep-geo in a 72ft square facility. The lifespan of a plants waste will fit in a foot wide hole. One facility on earth could manage all we have now and many more in the future with absolutely nobody the wiser. If transporting it to thag site worries you, the waste is fused into a glass ceramic. Which itself dulls any residual radiation. The containers too, are the closest thing to indestructible I've ever seen. A full speed train could hit it, it'll just bounce off, even if that train exploded on impact. As it is already, nuclear waste travels 1000s of miles often, and you're none the wiser. The upside to this kind of progress is you'd know about it, where it is, and if people give the time. Learn just how effective it is and sage.

Renewables don't produce nearly enough energy, they are too inconsistent (sunlight/wind) especially for a country that's this extremely far north and we don't have technology that can store large amounts of energy so even if you'd have overproduction of energy from sun during the day, you'd have no power at night. Renewables are good, but they are incapable of being the main source of energy as the output is simply not enough. Finland also uses plenty of hydro, wind and solar and is constantly expanding all of them.

Wind and solar cannot power anything, and even if they could they would require even more work because they are less dense.

Hi Jack, shit posting again I see. High-level nuclear waste is an asset, not a liability. But, you already know that.

Hello Jack, the study that showed that copper was not as corrosion-resistant as hoped, was debunked. Whilst the copper was less corrosion-resistant, it was shown not to be a problem.

@@aronvik2976 I sincerely hope that the Fins and Swedes succeed in their venture better than the WIPP plant did.

Nuclear waste isn't just crud thrown down a pit though either. Its fused, glass and ceramic ultimately. Also to deep-geo store it... We're talking a foot wide hole for the lifespan of a plants material. I don't think it's overly concerning. Every nuclear plant on earth right now, 26 or so I believe. So, let's give each 3ft a hole. That's a 72ft square space somewhere on earth... That's quite easy enough to manage. In every regard. From start to end. Fossil fuel for mining, sure not grand. But 20yrs of a plant is what 2yrs of a coal plant cruds out. So to weigh it up...

@@SombreroPharoah I don't like coal. The same utilities with nuclear reactors also have coal-fired power plants. They threaten to burn more coal if they don't get even more nuclear subsidies and restrictions on energy conservation and renewables. See bribes for House Speakers Larry Householder and Mike Madigan in Ohio and Illinois by nuclear utilities. Vitrification breaks down within 100 years. High-level nuclear waste would break it down ever faster. Heat from the waste must be ventilated away to keep it from building up. The WIPP repository in New Mexico was constructed 2,150 feet deep in a salt bed. It was authorized to store transuranic waste in 1999. In 2014, first a fire and then 8 days later, an explosion occurred releasing radioactive isotopes contaminating land over 200 miles away. Once it is released, there is no getting it back into Pandora's Box. It will cost over $2 billion to fix, the ventilation system is broken and the tunnel collapsed where the explosion occurred. The "accident" was caused by a combination of highly radioactive waste, mismanagement and slack enforcement of regulatory requirements, just like all nuclear "accidents." Didn't take long for them to muck it up, did it? How will your "easy" little holes in the ground be any different? What is the impact of uranium mine tailings left in open trenches, waste mountains and sludge ponds? It takes 1 million lbs. of 0.1% ore to generate 7 lbs. of U-235. Most of the radioactivity is still in the tailings. A 1000 MW reactor produces over 10-20 tons of high-level waste/yr. and 50-70 tons of low-level waste, which also must be vitrified and stored in casks and maintained to avoid emissions.The fission products are thousands to millions of times more dangerous than the U-235 that went into the reactors. The tailings are acidic and radioactive. Also they contain many of the same heavy metals and toxins in coal ash. Fossil fuels are used to mine and process ore and build the huge steel and concrete reactors. Reactor steel, concrete, pipes and pressure tubes that come into contact with fission products are radioactive after 40 years from neutron absorption. Need a big hole, don't you? A lot of them. And some very mean SOBs to keep the vandals and terrorists away. I sure do like those solar panels and wind turbines.

Exactly. Thank you very much. This burying expensive resources is an other way to some powerful connectionfull companies to make easy money. Thats all.