Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance

sv1sjp@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.world – 2175 points –
Young climate activist tells Greenpeace to drop ‘old-fashioned’ anti-nuclear stance
theguardian.com
1068

You are viewing a single comment

Dig a hole, anywhere, there's a chance it'll fill with water. Especially with climate change. We're seeing moisture getting dropped in areas at greater frequencies that didn't happen decades ago. There's no guarantee you can dig a hole anywhere on earth that wouldn't become apart of our aquifers as the water travels back to the ocean.

There is no guarantee of anything.

But if you're storing it hundreds of miles from the ocean, the risk is minimal.

It isn't really minimal since the water cycle on earth is all connected.

Water in the ocean evaporates. It's carries inland by Hadley cells that deposit the moisture inland. It gets dumped on the highest points which all run back the ocean and creating all our aquifers along the way. Those aquifers feed our great lakes and wells.

But you're suggesting we bury toxic material that remains toxic for hundreds or thousands of years somewhere remote that would just be high up in that water cycle. In places where private companies would be out of the eyes of watchdog groups

that would just be high up in that water cycle. In places where private companies would be out of the eyes of watchdog groups

That is not what I am suggesting.

Sealing a deep narrow borehole isn't a difficult problem. The Earth has contained oil and gas underground for millions of years.

Its contained it using geological features but once exposed how is it possible to recreate that. Its also not like this material is goo

The hole would be 0.5m wide and >1000m deep, backfilled with bentonite clay and concrete. At the bottom, the path curves back upward, so waste is not stored at the bottom.

Even if geology doesn't collapse the hole, it's hard to imagine material climbing up through 1000m of clogged pipe.