Say Goodbye to the Lake District

[bigpaul]

(30 January 2013, 14:14)Barneyboy Wrote: were running out of space dudes!!!

well they needent bother here we are full up with wind farms now there talking about solar farms!

[BDG]

(30 January 2013, 13:50)bigpaul Wrote: i'd still keep away from there though, especially after TSHTF when there is no one to monitor it.

While I would not go climbing around in the place, there should never be any problem above ground unless someone deliberately makes one. That could happen anywhere.

(30 January 2013, 13:57)BeardyMan Wrote: 1sq KM of above ground facilities, access roads built and whatever else is required.

They're on about putting it in a NATIONAL PARK!
Regardless of what it is, the nuclear thing doesn't bother me at all, it's the location. One of the few unspoilt places the UK has left.

The above ground stuff is going to be outside of the national park. While this is still a nice area, it does have to go somewhere.

(30 January 2013, 14:08)Prepper1 Wrote: Why don't they put it in london's abandoned stations... oh hang on that's too close to them, that's why they want it up there, far far away in case of accidents...
near the plebs...
Oh wait haven't they just given the go ahead for fracking in the u.k. again, that can cause geological faults to open....

I do not think Chalk and London clay create the geological stability for deep storage of nuclear wastes. What kind of accidents do you envisage and exactly who are 'the plebs' and so who are 'not the plebs'?

[bigpaul]

(30 January 2013, 14:38)BDG Wrote: exactly who are 'the plebs' and so who are 'not the plebs'?

"Plebs" i always thought were the ordinary people of this country, so that would make non-plebs the politicos.

[BeardyMan]

(30 January 2013, 14:38)BDG Wrote: I do not think Chalk and London clay create the geological stability for deep storage of nuclear wastes.

The site they are proposing has already been found to be geologically unsuitable. Even more investigation causes destruction of the area.

[NorthernRaider]

They voted against it. http://news.sky.com/story/1045037/cumbri...waste-site

I believe the areas that use the most power should be the ones to host the reactors, IE put the filthy deadly reactors in London and Birmingham and store the waste there as well. Energy generation and distribution should be localised.

[Straight Shooter]

i am with BP / S1 nuff said

[Metroyeti]

They should store it in france, that way we can spot the imigrants easier as they will glow green :p , all jokes aside they should store it somewere safe, and somewere thats on full lockdown so naughty enviromentalist can break in

[I-K-E]

(30 January 2013, 15:02)BeardyMan Wrote:

(30 January 2013, 14:38)BDG Wrote: I do not think Chalk and London clay create the geological stability for deep storage of nuclear wastes.

The site they are proposing has already been found to be geologically unsuitable. Even more investigation causes destruction of the area.

just a note London Clay is actually a very good medium for storing nuclear waste as it creates a barrier to radionucleotide escape

the thing is the reason that we want to stick the waste underground is that it the safest option. If TSHF and the waste is stored on the surface like it is how then then builds will fail and over time (could be 100s of years) the waste will eventually leak out. In a geologically sound deep repository using the multi-barrier approach the waste can be stored safely for 100,000s of years.

---

Oh it the waste was in the Lake District but in a DGP then I'd hav no issue going there compare to the current storage on the surface at Sellafield

[bigpaul]

(30 January 2013, 20:26)I-K-E Wrote: In a geologically sound deep repository using the multi-barrier approach the waste can be stored safely for 100,000s of years.

the trouble is, we havent had nuclear for 100,000 years-we've only had it for about 70 years so how do they know? its only theory, i prefer to be "safe, not sorry".

[Barneyboy]

(30 January 2013, 20:33)bigpaul Wrote:

(30 January 2013, 20:26)I-K-E Wrote: In a geologically sound deep repository using the multi-barrier approach the waste can be stored safely for 100,000s of years.

the trouble is, we havent had nuclear for 100,000 years-we've only had it for about 70 years so how do they know? its only theory, i prefer to be "safe, not sorry".

fair point mate