I’m strongly pro-nuclear from an environmental perspective. But NIMBYism always stalls it. There’s a fallback location near Thunder Bay, but I’d wager a shiny nickel that it gets ruled out after aboriginal consultation.
For some of these projects, the government really just to move forward by dictat, in my opinion. At some point you buy a dying mining town just for this purpose or something.
You would likely be opposed by millions of others tho.
Nobody wants a nuclear waste facility in their backyard, especially those who live in the heart of the Canadian Shield where the rock fissures that feed ground water wells can travel hundreds of kms in any direction … meaning that the smallest of leakages can do the same.
That’s just junk science. Groundwater flow rates are easy to measure. And any such facility will be both over engineered and one of the best monitored locations on the planet.
I mean, aside from choosing a location specifically because the rock lacks fractures, isn’t stressed, not earthquake prone, etc…
Whatever. I guess we kill the planet instead of getting the needle.
It’s not junk science. The shield is a deranged drainage system, meaning that there is “no coherent pattern to the rivers and lakes” (source). The fissues in the mafic rock (aka greenstone rock), which are surrounded by granite, mean that water flows hapazardly through the underground cracks and caverns (created by glacial erosion and the subsequent post-glacial rebound) to settle in the lowest areas (source).
Appeal to authority argument incoming. Points to self. Am scientist. Am geoscientist. Am hard rock geoscientist who professionally uses instruments to quantify rock properties.
You’re quoting things that do not apply uniformly across the shield as though they apply across the shield. Nuclear waste storage locations ideally are within granite plutons, of which there are many within the shield. You don’t think the people looking to develop storage facilities don’t look for the most competent rocks? There was a research facility in Pinawa Manitoba for years – they mapped every fracture in that rock from above and below. They learned construction techniques tailored for the rock. It’s goddamned perfect.
Furthermore, have you ever heard of grout? How do you think hydroelectric reservoirs retain their water when built in the shield? Engineering and materials science are marvelous things.
Holy fuck the specter of nuclear waste. It takes 20 FUCKING MILLION kg of coal to equal the energy available in 1kg of uranium (that’s like a baseball sized lump). Build the site and store it, if for some reason it turns out to be a sub-optimal in the future, there won’t be much of it to move.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
I’m strongly pro-nuclear from an environmental perspective. But NIMBYism always stalls it. There’s a fallback location near Thunder Bay, but I’d wager a shiny nickel that it gets ruled out after aboriginal consultation.
For some of these projects, the government really just to move forward by dictat, in my opinion. At some point you buy a dying mining town just for this purpose or something.
Ok. Then put the nuclear waste facility somewhere in the Golden Horseshoe, closer to the millions of customers who will use most of the power.
If the geology was appropriate, I wouldn’t be opposed.
You would likely be opposed by millions of others tho.
Nobody wants a nuclear waste facility in their backyard, especially those who live in the heart of the Canadian Shield where the rock fissures that feed ground water wells can travel hundreds of kms in any direction … meaning that the smallest of leakages can do the same.
That’s just junk science. Groundwater flow rates are easy to measure. And any such facility will be both over engineered and one of the best monitored locations on the planet.
I mean, aside from choosing a location specifically because the rock lacks fractures, isn’t stressed, not earthquake prone, etc…
Whatever. I guess we kill the planet instead of getting the needle.
It’s not junk science. The shield is a deranged drainage system, meaning that there is “no coherent pattern to the rivers and lakes” (source). The fissues in the mafic rock (aka greenstone rock), which are surrounded by granite, mean that water flows hapazardly through the underground cracks and caverns (created by glacial erosion and the subsequent post-glacial rebound) to settle in the lowest areas (source).
Appeal to authority argument incoming. Points to self. Am scientist. Am geoscientist. Am hard rock geoscientist who professionally uses instruments to quantify rock properties.
You’re quoting things that do not apply uniformly across the shield as though they apply across the shield. Nuclear waste storage locations ideally are within granite plutons, of which there are many within the shield. You don’t think the people looking to develop storage facilities don’t look for the most competent rocks? There was a research facility in Pinawa Manitoba for years – they mapped every fracture in that rock from above and below. They learned construction techniques tailored for the rock. It’s goddamned perfect.
Furthermore, have you ever heard of grout? How do you think hydroelectric reservoirs retain their water when built in the shield? Engineering and materials science are marvelous things.
Then please accept my apologies.
^ This guy rocks.
Holy fuck the specter of nuclear waste. It takes 20 FUCKING MILLION kg of coal to equal the energy available in 1kg of uranium (that’s like a baseball sized lump). Build the site and store it, if for some reason it turns out to be a sub-optimal in the future, there won’t be much of it to move.