Plans to store nuclear waste in Ennerdale.

[treefrog]

Heads up for this controversial plan to use Wild Ennerdale to dump nuclear waste.
There appear plans afoot to use Ennerdale, Lake District for the disposal of nuclear waste underground. http://www.thebmc.co.uk/nuclear-dump-threatens-lakes

There is a petition to sign against the proposal at http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/no-nuclear-dump-in-the-lake-district

 

[Toadflax]

Or is it...?

Does anybody remember the Beiderbecke Tapes? If you don't, or never saw the series, you won't know what I'm talking about! I'll explain if needs be.


Geoff

 

[treefrog]

Edge of Darkness.

Or is it...?
Does anybody remember the Beiderbecke Tapes? If you don't, or never saw the series, you won't know what I'm talking about! I'll explain if needs be.

What has James Bolam's Jazz tapes got to do with it ?

 

[Shewie]

Not good, Ennerdale has become a favourite of mine recently

Petition signed, now to spread the word

 

[crosslandkelly]

Edge of Darkness.

"As Yorkshire detective Ronald Craven investigates the murder of his daughter, the story spirals into gripping eco-thriller of political conspiracy, secret service machinations and even shadier medieval societies. As he draws closer to the dangerous inner sanctums of organised enviromental protests, he discovers the ultimate truths at the heart of our society."


A brilliant thriller from the eighties. Bob Peck, Joe Don Baker, Zoe Wannamaker and Joanne Whalley. Scarily pertinent to this thread.

 

[Toadflax]

What has James Bolam's Jazz tapes got to do with it ?

The cassette tapes had a recording of 'officials' discussing dumping nuclear waste in the Yorkshire Dales and were passed to Mrs Swinburne /Mr Chaplin (Mrs Swinburne being an 'environmentalist'). The plan was untrue but, with this disinformation having gone public, when the real site for the nuclear waste disposal was made public, everyone thought it was a good thing, because it wasn't as bad as the middle of the Dales.


Geoff

 

[Manacles]

The Beiderbecke Tapes, blimey you lot are showing your age. Jokes aside this has always been the political hot potato (hot uranium core rod??) with nuclear fuel. If it could be cracked before all the uranium is used up that is. Not sure I'd wish it near me I have to say. Am signing petition peeps.

 

[Teepee]

Its already happened where I live. 4 miles down the road, and 5 miles in the other direction are open nuclear waste dumps. Despite many thousands of signatures, years of protests, lots of coverage in the national press and safety breaches at the site with lower level waste (asbestos and medical), it still got pushed through.

For those vociferously objecting to it on principle, I suggest it may be wise to check what levels of waste are being dumped and the method of containment. Nuclear waste is never nice, but put in perspective it may not be as bad as you fear. I don't know, and have not read up on this site so can comment on how bad it is yet.

Both of my local nuclear waste dumps will emit much lower levels of radiation than the granite chippings spread on the roads.

It also has to go somewhere. Be warned that if is stopped being dumped there, it may be dumped on your doorstep instead-like they have done here

If I had a choice on whether it was dumped close to a nuclear power station in the mountains, or closer to populated areas with more transport involved in getting it there with all the risks involved in that; Ennerdale gets Nuked every time.

 

[mountainm]

I always figured given the radioactive material is mined from somewhere then the waste would ideally go back in to fill the void. Therefore having no net increase in radioactivity?

 

[Toddy]

I think it ought to be stored in the biggest population centres, where most energy is used, because that way they'd make damned certain to do it right.

Otherwise it's, " out of sight, out of mind", and they get sloppy about it.

M

 

[The Lord Poncho]

I won't be signing the petition until more information is known on the proposals. I'm surprised that so many people have jumped on the bandwagon with absolutely no knowledge of what the impacts, if any, comprise. Such an attitude can have serious adverse consequences for the environment, often curtailing initiatives which can significantly improve the environment for all of us (waste to energy incinerators for example). NIMBYism seems to be a term that we aren't allowed to use, but this is just another example of it....

 

[mountainm]

I think it ought to be stored in the biggest population centres, where most energy is used, because that way they'd make damned certain to do it right.

Otherwise it's, " out of sight, out of mind", and they get sloppy about it.

M

If energy prices were calculated to penalise the wasteful (As oppose to the current system where prices per unit get lower for high consumers) then it would benefit everyone.

 

[Manacles]

If energy prices were calculated to penalise the wasteful (As oppose to the current system where prices per unit get lower for high consumers) then it would benefit everyone.

Nice one :You_Rock_

 

[Manacles]

I won't be signing the petition until more information is known on the proposals. I'm surprised that so many people have jumped on the bandwagon with absolutely no knowledge of what the impacts, if any, comprise. Such an attitude can have serious adverse consequences for the environment, often curtailing initiatives which can significantly improve the environment for all of us (waste to energy incinerators for example). NIMBYism seems to be a term that we aren't allowed to use, but this is just another example of it....

Far from it old chap, it's about extensive research, in my case ten minutes on the internet - seriously though the "half life" of nuclear waste is such that humans do not currently have the technology to store it until it is wholly safe, hence much of the controversy. It's a great shame as nuclear (if there was more uranium) could easily have been the anwer to future power needs. As it is it will be gone in "usable and accessible form" in around thrity years. The legacy last thousands.

 

[blacktimberwolf]

How about the pro-nuclear offering their back gardens as nuclear waste dumps instead of praising it & turning a blind eye when the waste is buried in other folk's back yard.

 

[Manacles]

I always figured given the radioactive material is mined from somewhere then the waste would ideally go back in to fill the void. Therefore having no net increase in radioactivity?

Sadly not, as it is processed to effectively increase its potential, that's part of the problem. In it's raw state it will make you very ill but not run a steam turbine. The technology is truly outstanding, it's just the leftovers.

 

[Andy BB]

Far from it old chap, it's about extensive research, in my case ten minutes on the internet - seriously though the "half life" of nuclear waste is such that humans do not currently have the technology to store it until it is wholly safe, hence much of the controversy. It's a great shame as nuclear (if there was more uranium) could easily have been the anwer to future power needs. As it is it will be gone in "usable and accessible form" in around thrity years. The legacy last thousands.

Unfortunately this (30 years supply) is anything but the complete story.

"

(updated August 2012)​

• Uranium is a relatively common metal, found in rocks and seawater. Economic concentrations of it are not uncommon.
• Its availability to supply world energy needs is great both geologically and because of the technology for its use.
• Quantities of mineral resources are greater than commonly perceived.
• The world's known uranium resources increased 15% in two years to 2007 due to increased mineral exploration.

Uranium is a relatively common element in the crust of the Earth (very much more than in the mantle). It is a metal approximately as common as tin or zinc, and it is a constituent of most rocks and even of the sea. Some typical concentrations are: (ppm = parts per million).

Very high-grade ore (Canada) - 20% U	200,000 ppm U
High-grade ore - 2% U,	20,000 ppm U
Low-grade ore - 0.1% U,	1,000 ppm U
Very low-grade ore* (Namibia) - 0.01% U	100 ppm U
Granite	3-5 ppm U
Sedimentary rock	2-3 ppm U
Earth's continental crust (av)	2.8 ppm U
Seawater	0.003 ppm U

* Where uranium is at low levels in rock or sands (certainly less than 1000 ppm) it needs to be in a form which is easily separated for those concentrations to be called "ore" - that is, implying that the uranium can be recovered economically. This means that it need to be in a mineral form that can easily be dissolved by sulfuric acid or sodium carbonate leaching.
An orebody is, by definition, an occurrence of mineralisation from which the metal is economically recoverable. It is therefore relative to both costs of extraction and market prices. At present neither the oceans nor any granites are orebodies, but conceivably either could become so if prices were to rise sufficiently.
Measured resources of uranium, the amount known to be economically recoverable from orebodies, are thus also relative to costs and prices. They are also dependent on the intensity of past exploration effort, and are basically a statement about what is known rather than what is there in the Earth's crust - epistemology rather than geology. See Appendix 2 for mineral resource and reserve categories.
Changes in costs or prices, or further exploration, may alter measured resource figures markedly. At ten times the current price, seawater might become a potential source of vast amounts of uranium. Thus, any predictions of the future availability of any mineral, including uranium, which are based on current cost and price data and current geological knowledge are likely to be extremely conservative.
From time to time concerns are raised that the known resources might be insufficient when judged as a multiple of present rate of use. But this is the Limits to Growth fallacy, a major intellectual blunder recycled from the 1970s, which takes no account of the very limited nature of the knowledge we have at any time of what is actually in the Earth's crust. Our knowledge of geology is such that we can be confident that identified resources of metal minerals are a small fraction of what is there. Factors affecting the supply of resources are discussed further and illustrated in the Appendix.

 

[Manacles]

Unfortunately this (30 years supply) is anything but the complete story.

What's your source on that Andy?

 

[The Lord Poncho]

the "half life" of nuclear waste is such that humans do not currently have the technology to store it until it is wholly safe, .

That much is true, but it's an argument that is far too easy for anti nuclear individuals to state- and is entirely irrelevant. How safe something is depends on there being a pathway to a sensitive receptor, and to arrive at that receptor in a form/concentration that can do harm.

These are fundamental principles that will be tested and significantly challenged with rigour through the planning process. If there is a demonstrable issue/or even a material element of doubt, the proposal would be refused.

Even if there is some element of residual risk, let us not forget that tens of thousands of individuals die every year through the direct effects of fossil fuel consumption. This figure will climb to hundreds of thousands and beyond over the next 20 or so years when food belts shift, pressures on finite food and fuel resources increase, and we enter the age of the resource refugee...

 

[santaman2000]

It's also interesting to not that a large proportion of those who oppose nuclear power have no qualms about going to a tanning bed.