I think that depends on the definition of “solved”.
In Finland, the Onkalo repository is being steadily built out (honestly, there might already be waste stored there, I haven’t checked in on that story in a while. I know there was some delay due to COVID).
In the United States, there’s been a lot of the usual politicking about where to build something that doesn’t exactly sound appealing to have in one’s backyard. Nobody wants to be the senator who allowed the government to build a nuclear waste site in their state, no matter how safe the site actually is.
This has led to the unfortunate situation where by law, the EPA is only allowed to consider a site in Nevada (because the other sites were in states represented by the Speaker of the House and President pro Tempore of the Senate), but because Nevada became an important state for Obama to become president, the site couldn’t/wouldn’t actually be built there and has been on hold pretty much ever since. My armchair understanding is that the Nevada site is probably one of the better places in the United States that you could store nuclear waste, but politics has ensured it will not be put there for a long, long time.
What do you mean hasn’t been solved? Nuclear waste is being processed and stored constantly and with high safety. Not to mention reprocessing which could be done if not for being outlawed.
The only permanent storage for high level waste is currently being built in Finland, if I’m not mistaken. Germany thought they had found one, but they have to retrieve all waste because of leaks. Back to square one.
All we have up to now is temporary surface storage.
We forgot about the pyramides (4k years ago) and found some of them recently. There is research about how to warn future humans about the thread what turned out to be very difficult, because in 4k years, there have been multiple languages…
I would not call the status quo a permanent solution. Given the time it takes that stuff to not be dangerous anymore, we have got a temporary solution.
Also we didn’t forget about the pyramids. What does that even mean? People have lived right next to them since they were built.
There are more pyramids than just the 3 of Giza in Egypt… During the last 100 years, multiple pyramids (probably 100s) have been found that were forgotten by humanity. There are discoveries in China, Peru, Egypt, …
The pyramids weren’t buried 1km under the surface
Somehow ironic. Yes, the Tomb of Tutankhamun was not buried 1km under the surface. But it was discovered 3.250 years after it was build in 1922.
Anyway… There is Egyptology, which has the goal to find out what they have done 1000s of years ago, because we did/do not know that. We don’t know who some of the pharaohs are, some pharaohs that are mentioned haven’t even been found. He can read some of the writings, we can’t read all of them. Lots of knowledge was lost, and that’s what you need to realized when you are planning to store stuff for 1000s of years.
Yes there are archaeological sites which have been forgotten and rediscovered.
Nothing you’re saying is a strong argument about self sealing deep storage waste burial sites. I don’t think you realize just how little waste nuclear reactors produce, they’re not pyramids, they’re a few barrels across years.
Germany alone expects it to be 10.500 tons until 2080. And that’s only the “highly radioactive” part. That’s more than a few barrels. And there are more countries on this planet than just the one I’m from…
sorry for the confusion. It’s of course not 11 tons. It’s 11,000 (11k) tons. Germany uses the dot as a “thousands separator”.
Not really relevant to deep salt storage.
Well, I disagree with that. We can simply not imagine what happens in 10k years or how the planet looks in 10k years. And being sure that none of the many “final” storage places will be opened in the future is naive…
BTW, in 10k years, your grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-children will live on this planet.
What do you prefer? A power plant where all the hazardous material it generates you throw out into the atmosphere, or one where you can capture all of it into a container and prevent it from going out into the environment?
> Renewables plus storage are very well capable of reliable supply.
Don’t get me wrong, they are capable of a much larger percentage of supply than they currently provide, but to handle the predictable periods of peak demand on the grid, it would be incredibly inefficient to rely only on renewables plus storage. It’s not the most environmentally friendly solution for that.
Do you have an english translation for the link in the edit btw?
>an institution as unsuspicious of being “too green” as it gets
Being too green is not the problem. The problem is not being green enough…
Strangely enough it hasn’t been solved in the almost 70 years of nuclear energy. And I doubt it will be solved in the next 70 years either.
I think that depends on the definition of “solved”.
In Finland, the Onkalo repository is being steadily built out (honestly, there might already be waste stored there, I haven’t checked in on that story in a while. I know there was some delay due to COVID).
In the United States, there’s been a lot of the usual politicking about where to build something that doesn’t exactly sound appealing to have in one’s backyard. Nobody wants to be the senator who allowed the government to build a nuclear waste site in their state, no matter how safe the site actually is.
This has led to the unfortunate situation where by law, the EPA is only allowed to consider a site in Nevada (because the other sites were in states represented by the Speaker of the House and President pro Tempore of the Senate), but because Nevada became an important state for Obama to become president, the site couldn’t/wouldn’t actually be built there and has been on hold pretty much ever since. My armchair understanding is that the Nevada site is probably one of the better places in the United States that you could store nuclear waste, but politics has ensured it will not be put there for a long, long time.
What do you mean hasn’t been solved? Nuclear waste is being processed and stored constantly and with high safety. Not to mention reprocessing which could be done if not for being outlawed.
The only permanent storage for high level waste is currently being built in Finland, if I’m not mistaken. Germany thought they had found one, but they have to retrieve all waste because of leaks. Back to square one.
All we have up to now is temporary surface storage.
There is deep salt vein storage here in the us actively being used as we speak.
We forgot about the pyramides (4k years ago) and found some of them recently. There is research about how to warn future humans about the thread what turned out to be very difficult, because in 4k years, there have been multiple languages…
I would not call the status quo a permanent solution. Given the time it takes that stuff to not be dangerous anymore, we have got a temporary solution.
The pyramids weren’t buried 1km under the surface in flowing salt which will further engulf the waste for geologic time scales.
Also we didn’t forget about the pyramids. What does that even mean? People have lived right next to them since they were built.
There are more pyramids than just the 3 of Giza in Egypt… During the last 100 years, multiple pyramids (probably 100s) have been found that were forgotten by humanity. There are discoveries in China, Peru, Egypt, …
Somehow ironic. Yes, the Tomb of Tutankhamun was not buried 1km under the surface. But it was discovered 3.250 years after it was build in 1922.
Anyway… There is Egyptology, which has the goal to find out what they have done 1000s of years ago, because we did/do not know that. We don’t know who some of the pharaohs are, some pharaohs that are mentioned haven’t even been found. He can read some of the writings, we can’t read all of them. Lots of knowledge was lost, and that’s what you need to realized when you are planning to store stuff for 1000s of years.
Yes there are archaeological sites which have been forgotten and rediscovered.
Nothing you’re saying is a strong argument about self sealing deep storage waste burial sites. I don’t think you realize just how little waste nuclear reactors produce, they’re not pyramids, they’re a few barrels across years.
I don’t think that you realize what can happen in thousands of years.
BTW, it’s not me who brought up the question. There is an interesting article about it: https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200731-how-to-build-a-nuclear-warning-for-10000-years-time
And also a wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messages
Germany alone expects it to be 10.500 tons until 2080. And that’s only the “highly radioactive” part. That’s more than a few barrels. And there are more countries on this planet than just the one I’m from…
https://www.bge.de/de/abfaelle/aktueller-bestand/
I’m well aware of the hazards communication projects. Not really relevant to deep salt storage.
Thousands of years is nothing across geologic time scales.
Yeah 11 tons is literally nothing. That’s only 575 m^3 of uranium.
That’s a third by mass of the average single German households trash production across the same time period. And it’s more dense, so less volume.
sorry for the confusion. It’s of course not 11 tons. It’s 11,000 (11k) tons. Germany uses the dot as a “thousands separator”.
Well, I disagree with that. We can simply not imagine what happens in 10k years or how the planet looks in 10k years. And being sure that none of the many “final” storage places will be opened in the future is naive…
BTW, in 10k years, your grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-children will live on this planet.
What do you prefer? A power plant where all the hazardous material it generates you throw out into the atmosphere, or one where you can capture all of it into a container and prevent it from going out into the environment?
Neither. I don’t buy the assumption that they are necessary. Renewables plus storage are very well capable of reliable supply.
Edit: https://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.821878.de/publikationen/wochenberichte/2021_29_1/100_prozent_erneuerbare_energien_fuer_deutschland__koordinierte_ausbauplanung_notwendig.html (in German, published by the German Institute for Economic Research, an institution as unsuspicious of being “too green” as it gets)
> Renewables plus storage are very well capable of reliable supply.
Don’t get me wrong, they are capable of a much larger percentage of supply than they currently provide, but to handle the predictable periods of peak demand on the grid, it would be incredibly inefficient to rely only on renewables plus storage. It’s not the most environmentally friendly solution for that.
Do you have an english translation for the link in the edit btw?
>an institution as unsuspicious of being “too green” as it gets
Being too green is not the problem. The problem is not being green enough…
Unfortunately, no. Most of the site lets you choose English, but for this specific article you’d need Google translate, or deepl, or whatever else.
It has, it’s just illegal to do in the US. France has been doing it since the 60s.
It was solved less then 10 years after nuclear power was discovered.