Atomic Show #273 - Liz Muller, Deep Isolation 1

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Comments:

7 Comments

  1. I saw this elsewhere a while ago, and agree.

    The linked video fails to note the signature virtues of the method:  troublesome substances which migrate upward head toward the blind end of the borehole and are trapped beneath the caprock, while troublesome substances which migrate downward can get no further than the bottom of the curve of the borehole.  And that’s where they stay, by design.

    With proper fuel reprocessing and reclamation, we really won’t need storage beyond a few hundred years save for a few long-lived isotopes like Tc-99 and I-129.  Isotopes like Cs-137 will have immediate uses such as food sterilization.  Barely 6% of LWR SNF is even transmuted.  We really need to be making use of this stuff rather than deeming it all “waste”.

    BTW, good work on the audio levels between the intro and podcast proper.  I wish you had edited out the “ums”.

  2. The key to any scheme for future generations is going to be retrievability.

    The best thing that Yucca Mountain had going for it was that the mountain was not allowed to be closed for 100 years. That’s plenty of time to pull the “waste” back out and get energy from it.

    Anything that bills itself as more “efficient” at getting the stuff plugged underground I consider with suspicion. Nuclear “waste” is not a problem now and is not a problem if it sits that the YM site, and it’s easier to track what you have if it is all consolidated at one site.

    This strikes me as a plan to quickly get the stuff buried deep. And then a few decades later, we’ll be drilling to get the stuff back up. It’s a huge waste of effort and money, but I suppose it can be very profitable for companies that specialize in borehole drilling. That’s my cynical view.

  3. Anything that bills itself as more “efficient” at getting the stuff plugged underground I consider with suspicion.

    This isn’t the only game in town by far; Holtec is planning an interim storage facility in New Mexico.  My understanding is that Deep Isolation has already demonstrated placement and retrieval of dummy fuel packages.

    Nuclear “waste” is not a problem now and is not a problem if it sits that the YM site, and it’s easier to track what you have if it is all consolidated at one site.

    Thus, Holtec.

    This strikes me as a plan to quickly get the stuff buried deep. And then a few decades later, we’ll be drilling to get the stuff back up.

    I’m more sanguine than you are.  This strikes me as a way to counter the persistent “what about the waste?” line from the anti-nukes.  De-fanging that bit of propaganda is worth whatever it costs to demonstrate borehole disposal (we don’t have to use it, just have it), and since at least one state law prohibits new nuclear construction until there is a disposal site, it pays legal dividends too.

  4. Thanks, Rod. At the end of the interview, you asked Liz if there was anything she wanted to add. I think she should have talked about their proof of concept demonstration on January 16, 2019, in which a small, empty canister was deposited in a borehole and then retrieved. There’s a page for the demo on their site, but they didn’t include the documentary:
    https://youtu.be/3GZ4TC8ttbE

    I think there are a lot of people who want the “nuclear waste” issue kept alive for either political reasons or to help justify their opposition to nuclear energy.

  5. Several reply comments. Seems to me that Nevada has contributed to Nuclear waste and has been the recipient of significant economic benefits from DOD/DOE nuclear science for decades. They are contributory. In addition, Nevada has significant Air Force and other DOD installations within the state that contribute significant tax revenues in nonnuclear operations. Also, many of the nuclear reactors in Energy production are along U.S. coasts. The same coasts under siege from climate change mass flooding. Centralizing repository away from coasts is most prudent. There has NEVER been any nuclear accident when transporting nuclear waste in the past 50 years in the U.S. I propose only using the safest transportation in the world to transport the materials into storage, and avoid highways, rails, or other vulnerable methods. Good luck!

  6. WIPP was the perfect solution for storing unwanted radioactive waste, but some politicians had this wild idea that maybe someday, some of the material there would be of use in the future and had to be retrievable. Anything stored in WIPP would never be retrievable from the salt rock after a few years. Therefore, a second site was needed for the unused spent nuclear fuel from all nuclear reactors, whether private commercial reactors or military reactors from the Navy.

    After decades of trying to find a second storage site for retrievable unused radioactive fuel, it is ironic that the two sites being considered are right back in Southeast New Mexico and West Texas, also known as the Permian Basin. WHY? Because the politicians cannot change the science of geology (or chemistry). It is what it is.

  7. Before I listened to this PODCAST, I thought deep borehole would be a good solution for permanent solution HLW, but after listening to this interview I have completely changed my mind. This solution seems simple on the surface, but turned out to be very complex to implement. I don’t think this is a viable solution for retrievable SNF.

    I agree this solution does have value in storing fission products, non-usable fuels as a permanent waste. However, it only takes a policy change to store this material in WIPP.

Recent Comments from our Readers

  1. Avatar
  2. Avatar
  3. Avatar
  4. Avatar
  5. Avatar

Similar Posts