this post was submitted on 08 Nov 2026
56 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
89619 readers
3428 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sigh, it is super easy to deal with nuclear waste, you find stable bedrock, drill a hole into it, put the wast into the hole, backfill with clay.
Done.
There is zero need to build momuments to warn future civilizations, as long as it is deep enough, we can expect their technical development level to be on our own level before they can dig it up.
I am a Swede, we have stable bedrock, a stable political system, we have the skills to build a facility like this, we have a shitload of space for it. We should invest in large storage facilities for nuclear waste, we can make enough to fill the global demand for nuclear waste storage, and we could make a plenty of money doing so.
Also, it can be quite cold in Sweden, we could build the sites with heat exchange pipes surrounding them giving us decades of boosted geothermal power.
If I were a billionaire, I would focus on building nuclear waste sites for the benefit of mankind.
Burying it works great, until the geology shifts or groundwater starts seeping into the hole.
You call that a solution? Drill a deep hole and hope that nothing ever happens?
Yes?
It is the only long term solution we have, it is elegant and simple.
Posted article says otherwise. Clearly you didn't care to read it.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/experimental
Experimental - Noun "The subject of an experiment"
Given that there are zero experiences with burying nuclear waste for a million years, your easy solution is very much at best hypothetical.
Eh, the maths have shown that burying will work fine.
Your maths:
Where are the actual experiences with it? The physics also show that such a reactor is possible. If numbers on paper are good enough for burying, they are good enough for that reactor to actually get rid of the waste.
Look, we are both trying to solve the waste issue, why are you treating me like an enemy?
Posted article indicates that even if the experiment performs to expectations, there will still be waste to be disposed of. They hope to convert most of the nasty, longer-lived radionucleides into something useful, but most is not all. Plus, part of their selling point is conversion into medical radionucleide sources, and to be honest, the market there isn't all that big (like, "a single reactor in Canada supplied a high percentage of these sources for many years" not-that-big). It can probably absorb the output of this reactor, but ramp the idea up into a general solution for all nuclear waste everywhere, and we'll likely end up with more medical and industrial radionucleide sources than we know what to do with.
(There's also the question of what kinds of waste could be reprocessed. Only enriched waste from light-water reactors? What about waste from heavy-water reactors, which tends to be bulkier but considerably less radioactive?)
The less if left, the better. Certainly better than burying everything and hoping for the best.
Well, yes, less is better, but the point is, we're still going to need the holes in the ground. Just not as many or as large.
Nonsense, you just pay the Italia mafia to dispose of it responsibly
Out of curiosity, does Sweden have any nuclear power facilities?
And do you know if that form of storage requires vitrification of the waste products? (Essentially turning them to glass so they cannot leach out of containment in the event of a breach)
If you want more info about this type of a storage solution, look up Onkalo in Finland.
Thanks, that was interesting
Edit: For anyone interested, the technology is called KBS-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBS-3
We have three active nuclear powerplants, Ringhals, Forsmark and Oskarshamn.
We are currently decomissioning the powerplant Barsebäck, the Danes were less than happy about having two reactors close to their coast.
Forsmark is the only powerplant that still runs all their reactors, Oskarshamn only has one of three reactors running, and Ringhals has two active reactors out of four.
you are absolutely correct
Notice how I never once mentioned building more nuclear power in my post, so I am not sure if you are replying to the right conversation.
I apologize and deleted my post.
It happens, it's fine.
If you want to discuss my thoughts about nuclear power as a modern energy source, I am open to it, but perhaps in a more apropriate post.
Anyway, have a lovely day! :)