They are working on new materials that can be buried underground without melting.
You can bury a dead cat underground without melting.
Are you worrying about geological disposal of ice cream?
Relax. Its not a problem.
For direct buried cables each cable needs to be well-spaced from others for good heat dissipation.
To match overhead line thermal performance for a 400kV double circuit, as many as 12 separate cables in four separate trenches may be needed, resulting in a work area up to 65m wide. In addition, water cooling may be used (see section on âComponents of underground cable
systemsâ). For cables installed in deep bore tunnels, cable cooling is provided by forced air ventilation or water cooling.
The problem is that burying them underground requires a lot more to keep them from melting and increases cost up to 10x. Admittedly, lots of that cost is from excavation.
These new materials would eliminate the heat problem and reduce costs significantly.
65m vs 10m, itâs a big difference
Still to be tested, but hydrogen bombs seem to have this capability in spades
Ah!
So you were proposing a solution to a problem that no one, AFAIK had mentioned?
ErâŚOKâŚmaybe I missed it
If not, a bit of context would help.
My actual best guess was you were referring to glassified nuclear waste.
I wasnât really clear. Thatâs on me.
There was some discussion of long HVDC cable runs in Europe. People wonât like them running through their property and burying them costs like half a million a mile I think. We need something better before we go Gung-ho.
My answer to any waste problem question will always beâŚ
32N164W
Buried deeper and deeper in geologically stable clay for millions of years is fine.
Well. the ones for the Norway link would evidently be undersea for the most part. I suppose (donât know design specifics) that might provide additional cooling.
When it comes ashore I suppose itâll use the general grid which is mostly overhead, and thus passive air cooled.
Won;t work with I-129, for example. Too volatile, and 15.7 million year half life.
So they dump it in the sea, becauseâŚwhaddya gonna do?
I129 is a weak emitter.
Besides the clay bed there has been stable for 35 million years and will remain stable more than long enough. The waste will also be in caskets. The sea is dead there, there is little water movement, a constant 2°C and less than a gram of carbon per square meter. The clay bed is self healing and even if caskets corroded and leaked, radionuclides couldnât escape because they have a high affinity for clay. Sabotage proof, under four miles of ocean and a hundred feet deep in clay.
Itâs perfect.
We are on the verge of becommig a multi planetary species, and with all our brain power the best we can do is dig a hole. I get what youre saying, but color me unimpressedâŚ
If it were really so safe, just dispose in citiesâŚ
Based on probabilistic risk assessment, thatâs the safest plan we have. There will be so little waste anyways with breeder reactors and reprocessing and the eventual switch to fusion. That dead zone is huge. The waste would be a tiny speck and pose zero risk to anything.
We CAN just leave the waste near the reactors or in barren, secured sites and future generations can find use for it. Unfortunately that political problem is bigger than the political problem of burying it in clay.
Thats always going to be the problem with pro nuclear debate. Their points are always if and whenâŚso its meaningless. Sure maybe these fancy new reactors are clean and safe (even they still dispose of waste is secured aites, because its so safe).
Not being argumentative, buut the very basic reality is simple. We are talking waste now with vary degrees of plant age and.efficiencies. not 20 years from now when things âhopefullyâ become safe.
So when people hear/read words like:
"There will be so little waste anyways with breeder reactors and reprocessing and the eventual switch to fusion. That dead zone is huge. "
Most people switch off because its not discussing current issues and problems and.more just relying.on the hope of future tech to fix it. Which it may very well do, im not against continued research and development (same with solar and wind, keep steaming ahead on knowledge). But as is, using this country as an example. I am worried about nuclear waste. And i am very worried about human greed and corruption. And both of these issues are well documented here. The plants are aging. Taiwan is very much a hotspot for earthquakes and natural disasters. Taiwan has proven itself time and time again to be lazy and not diligent with nearly everything we make here. Just cause TSMC is world leading, doesnt make the country so⌠these are the main reasons i am anti nuclear in taiwan. I am also anti coal/oil.
The way i see it, which politicians are too pussy to even think about, is the energy needs to be conserved. Farmland factories, farmland lighting 24/7ac all this bullshit is why our air is the way it is. Set caps and charge out the ass for excessive useage. A 4 person home that pays 20k in electrical bills can get capped, spend their saved money on tissue for their prissy tears. More people die of air and food issues than they do of heat stroke in their homeâŚso mute point.
After such radicalness there will be mass incentive for higher production of cleaber energy. But it wont happen if it doesnt hurt first.
Instead, our.moronic.leaders and putting.solar in farmland. I am pro solar but STRONGLY anti idiot.
My drive today. Wanted to stop and stare, but too retarded.
As mentioned above, the tech worries me FAR less than the people using itâŚ
1 Like
That;s what we do.
And it is obviously and inherently dangerous.
Though we make it worse by doing it in a particularly obviously and inherently dangerous way, (as Fukushima showed) because its cheaper.
You canât trust people, and you wonât be able to trust them if they are doing what they are doing at the bottom of the ocean where you canât see them.
Either
1 Like
The sad thing is that you canât even trust people to do âcleanâ energy properly, as per Explantâs pictures above.
2 Likes
Over the 20th century, as power plants grew larger and more efficient, the cost of electricity declined dramatically, contributing significantly to rising living standards. Indeed, the process of producing energy, food, and products more efficiently and cheaply is the main driver of economic growth and prosperity.
But over the last 20 years, as federal and state policies have subsidized and mandated the use of less efficient sources of energy from weather-dependent wind and solar, which require far more land, transmission, and other infrastructure, electricity prices have risen, thus threatening economic growth, living standards, and societal resilience.
As such, while Democrats in Congress point to extreme weather events as justification for subsidizing renewables, the blackouts in California and Texas, and the maintenance of fossil fuels and renewables slowdown in Germany, suggest that anybody concerned about preventing blackouts should favor relying less, not more, on weather-dependent energies.
As someone who lives within breathing distance of Kaohsiungâs two coal-burning electric plants I say bring it on. That, or at least implement a comprehensive solar/wind policy. The strange piecemeal way theyâre installing solar panels now isnât working.
âŚ
I they have that simolistic an idea on it, then forget it. ârenewablesâ plays a part, not an entir thing. Keep coal or oil or nuclear as your backup/fill in source. Use solar and wind 100% and use the dirty and risky ones for fillin in the cracks. Sure there are logistics hurdles, but thats thie friggen job to figure it out not cry about its difficult. Hydro works in regions up to almos 100% of power use is places, no one cries about it being.hard. they cry about salmon. If salmon populations and gravesites are the biggest issues, you just (sadly) found a winner.
I suspect people are only concerned about salmon because they like to keep those delicious salmons aroundâŚ
Its not bad to protect them. I get it. But if you look at the alternative power sources i dont think there is a better, cleaner, safer one than hydro in places such as BC. Taiwan is abit different sure given the flood and drought type weather have and will continue to become more extreme.
