Who should decide where to store radioactive waste?
Nuclear waste repositories are a unique political project: the decision lasts for hundreds of thousands of years – that’s how long the waste is dangerous for. It has to be stored somewhere, but hardly anyone wants it near them.
Who do you think should decide where repositories are built: scientists, the government or the local population?
From the article Site in northern Switzerland chosen for nuclear waste storage
The ONLY safe way to deal with radioactive waste is not to create it. No man made structure can survive the ravages of time necessary for the waste to become inert.
For the waste we have already created, it would be far smarter to keep it in cooling ponds, in plain sight, where we can keep an eye on it. In this way, we can quickly mitigate any issues as they will invariably occur.
However, the time horizon for storage is well over 100,000 years. One of the challenges in dealing with nuclear waste is that it is not known whether the knowledge about deep repositories will last until then - and whether there will still be a human society as we know it today.
Der Zeithorizont der Aufbewahrung ist aber weit über 100 000 Jahre. Zur Herausforderung im Umgang mit dem Atommüll gehört also, dass man nicht weiss, ob das Wissen über die Tiefenlager bis dann Bestand hat - und ob es überhaupt noch eine menschliche Gesellschaft gibt, wie wir sie heute kennen
Surely the biggest inconvenience to the locality of any nuclear waste repository is not the safely stored waste, but the construction works to establish it. While this may help local businesses (restaurants etc.) in that period, the increased traffic, noise etc. would be the thing I would object to most. Hence those deciding should be the same or similar groups of people as for those living near new road and other large civil engineering projects.
You are right, the impact of the noise, the traffic and the excavation from the depths is enormous - and will last for a long time: In Switzerland, if everything goes according to the authorities' plan, the first construction work should take place from 2034, intensive construction from 2045, and the nuclear waste should arrive from 2050. Closure is planned for 2125. So it is almost a century that the region will feel the repository on the surface.
Sie haben recht, die Belastung durch den Lärm, den Verkehr und den Aushub aus der Tiefe ist enorm - und dauert lange an: In der Schweiz sollen, wenn alles nach Plan der Behörden verläuft, ab 2034 erste Bauarbeiten stattfinden, ab 2045 intensiv gebaut werden, ab 2050 soll der Atommüll kommen. Der Verschluss ist auf 2125 geplant. Es ist also beinahe ein Jahrhundert, wo die Region das Lager an der Oberfläche spürt.
Ours is an anti scientific country. There is a stark contrast in education between the academic and industry excellence of Switzerland and the common people. I would prefer my childrens to live all the time nearby a nuclear plant than anywhere downstream a dam. But risk and math are strangers to this society and we take the costlier, more dangerous and less reliable solutions just to keep the simpleton masses that believe in the green shamans lies happy. The sad thing is that they're murdering the biodiversity in the process. And once it's gone, it's gone forever. My grandchildren will never see white mountains or alpine fauna outside of Wikipedia (or whatever will come after it).
Your prognosis is painful to read. Let's hope it doesn't turn out that way!
Ihre Prognose ist schmerzhaft zu lesen. Hoffen wir, dass es nicht so kommt!
It's about virtue, honor, and upholding civic duties. People produce waste and export it - plastic, clothes, etc. Nuclear is another waste that people are wary of.
My waste not in my backyard also signifies that one is too self-centered that they think they are rich and dump anywhere else. Any waste produced in a country must be disposed of in the same country.
People/locality should vote if they want it. No compensation is enough but for such localities, better facilities can be provided as a whole. Cash is not the preferred mode but inculcating virtues is.
What you are describing is the textbook polluter pays principle, as it is actually intended to be.
How local should the decision be? Should the people in the locality, the region or the state vote on the location?
Was Sie beschreiben ist das Verursacherprinzip nach Lehrbuch, so wie es eigentlich vorgesehen wird.
Wie lokal soll die Entscheidung gefällt werden? Sollen die Menschen im Ort, der Region oder dem Staat über den Standort abstimmen?
How about not producing more nuclear waste. The very long-term effects of this waste have been known for many years and yet...we keep producing it and one generation leaving it to the next generation to solve this problem. I still think that rockets, containing this waste, should be shot in direction of the sun.
I suspect that putting nuclear waste onto a rocket and shooting it into space has more risk than storing/disposing of it safely in a stable underground repository…
And all the junk that modern man has been shooting into outer space...???
I agree that rockets to the sun is best solution. Elon Musk playing with his rockets has significantly reduced the payload cost. Besides satelite internet that is his biggest benefit to mankind.
The same answer as for your other comment applies here. Best regards.
Hier gilt dieselbe Antwort wie bei Ihrem anderen Kommentar. Herzliche Grüsse.
It should be kept near to where it is produced. That way, I doubt anyone will agree to a nuclear plant being built near them.
At present, after all, the challenge is how to deal with the nuclear waste that has already been generated.
Gegenwärtig ist die Herausforderung ja der Umgang mit den bereits entstandenen nuklearen Abfällen.
Again, store it near where it is produced, in huge underground storage tanks, if it cannot be neutralized. It should not be stored in someone else's backyard.
I remember very clearly the Chernobyl accident. Nuclear plants must be stopped. We need sustainable energy and not one that can leave entire cities uninhabitable for several hundreds of years.
And how to deal with the problem that already exists?
Und wie mit dem Problem umgehen, das bereits besteht?
And how do we deal with the waste that has already been created? After all, this represents a responsibility.
Und wie gehen wir mit dem bereits entstandenen Abfall um? Dieser stellt ja eine Verantwortung dar.
I think swiss wastes should be kept in Switzerland (land) but within a safe distance to our neighbouring countries (so that they don't complain), say 30km.
So you find the chosen location, "Nördlich Lägern", too close to the German border?
Also finden Sie den gewählten Standort, "Nördlich Lägern", zu nah an der deutschen Grenzen?
There should be some internationally-agreed safety distance for these storages. I don't know if it is 30km or 50km. Surely some nuclear experts can state this?
If it is less than 30km or the safety distance, then our DE neighbours cannot complain.
Do you think Switzerland will still make a location adjustment accordingly?
Denken Sie, die Schweiz wird entsprechend noch eine Standortanpassung machen?
Why not send it to Africa? There are plenty of space which is not used anyhow, just desert. Plenty of old tired mines which are not deconstructed or taken care of, so we could "renivate" it for nuclear, because thous abandoned mines are dangerous for people anyway.
As already written below: Switzerland has committed itself to finding a solution in its own country, as is customary internationally.
Wie bereits weiter unten geschrieben: Die Schweiz hat sich, wie international üblich, dazu verpflichtet eine Lösung im eigenen Land zu finden.
As already mentioned: Switzerland, like all European countries, has committed itself to take care of its nuclear waste domestically. Don't you also think that local authorities can best control safety standards in the case of local final disposal?
Wie bereits erwähnt: Die Schweiz hat sich, wie alle europäischen Länder, verpflichtet sich selbst um ihre nuklearen Abfälle im Inland zu kümmern. Denken Sie nicht auch, dass die lokalen Behörden bei einer lokalen Endlagerung die Sicherheitsstandards am besten kontrollieren können?
Why would Africa want Swiss nuclear waste? Why wouldn't the Swiss store it directly? They did benefit from. creating the waste.
We have known about the deadly effects of spent uranium, we have known that it remains radio-active for hundreds of years and yet...we keep going on as if all this was recent news and never knew about before. I have a very far-out idea...load the deadly spent uranium on rockets and send them off to the sun. These days just about anything could be possible...remember Jules Verne and his voyage beneath the seas.
In fact, this idea has been played out several times - the residual probability and fatal consequences of a false start is only one of the reasons why it is not seriously pursued.
Tatsächlich wurde diese Idee verschiedentlich durchgespielt - die Rest-Wahrscheinlichkeit und fatalen Folgen eines Fehlstarts ist nur einer der Gründe, weshalb sie nicht ernsthaft verfolgt wird.
Once again, nuclear technology has put us against the wall. The Human Being has put in place a technology that can be used for half a century but whose waste problem, to be managed for thousands of centuries, has never been thought of except to bury it (put under the carpet!). Courageously, and in all conscience, we leave it to future generations to find, eventually, a solution! What a beautiful irresponsibility! And what a waste of time and money instead of devoting all our energy and intelligence to sustainable energy resources. Voting will not solve any of these problems but will force a part of the population to live on the waste of the whole community.
Une nouvelle fois la technologie du nucléaire nous met au pied du mur. L'Etre Humain a mis en place une technologie utilisable un demi-siècle mais dont le problème des déchets, à gérer durant des milliers de siècles, n'a jamais été pensé sauf de les enterrer (mis sous le tapis!). Courageusement, et en toute conscience, nous laissons le soin aux futures générations de trouver, éventuellement, une solution! Quelle belle irresponsabilité! Et que de temps perdu et d'argent engouffré au lieu de consacrer toute notre énergie et notre intelligence pour des ressources énergétiques durables et soutenables. Les votations ne résoudront aucun de ces problèmes mais obligeront une partie de la population à vivre sur les déchets de toute la communauté.
The sense of responsibility and the waste problem exist among opponents as well as supporters of nuclear power. But how to decide which part of the population has to live "on the waste of the whole community"?
Das Verantwortungsbewusstsein und die Abfallproblematik besteht bei Gegner:innen wie Befürworter:innen der Kernkraft. Doch wie entscheidet man, welcher Teil der Bevölkerung "auf den Abfällen der gesamten Gemeinschaft" leben muss?
We should better decide not to produce such waste… Where to through the waste we already know about, Africa, north pole. India swims in Western countries junk. People are swarmed with our trash. If we do not produce waste we will not have to decide where to send it…
And what should the companies do with the waste that is already there?
Und was sollen die Gesellschaften mit den Abfällen machen, die bereits da sind?
Of course, it must be a panel of scientists, military people (security is paramount) and Government representatives. The only safe place to store that stuff is deeply underground, in area not subject to earthquakes. Facilities must be able to withstand anything, including a close nuclear blast.
You really trust these people? For how long? What amount?
It is up to the experts to determine the best locations for storage. It is then up to the public to vote for a particular location. If the issue cannot be resolved locally (if all locations refuse), then it is a federal ballot issue.
Or we can pay Sweden to take our waste.
Or, the day Ukraine is in the EU, we take the Chernobyl site as a deep repository for all the nuclear waste in Europe. Not as if this site is 230'000 years old...
C'est aux experts de déterminer les meilleurs lieux pour le stockage. C'est ensuite à la population de voter pour un lieu en particulier. Si le sujet ne peut être réglé localement (si tous les lieux refusent), alors c'est un objet de votation fédéral.
Ou alors on peut payer la Suède pour prendre nos déchets.
Ou alors, le jour où l'Ukraine est dans l'UE, on emménage le site de Tchernobyl comme stockage profond pour tous les déchets nucléaires d'Europe. Pas comme si ce site en était à 230'000 ans près...
It will take decades before Ukraine will be able to join EU, because there are standards of life and politics which need to be met to enrol.
Also, you can not excavate in Chernobyl . If you start digging the ground there, you die of heavy radiation kn the ground, it is called "red forest". So as a citizens I don't see a way for any sort of facility to be safely build in Chernobyl before it itself stops being radioactive and if so, no one will alone you to pollute this region again.
Switzerland has committed itself, as is customary internationally, to finding a solution itself - so moving it, whether to Sweden or Ukraine, is out of the question.
What do you think about the fact that each country is responsible for its own nuclear waste?
Die Schweiz hat sich, wie international üblich, dazu verpflichtet selbst eine Lösung zu finden - darum kommt ein Verschieben, ob nach Schweden oder in die Ukraine nicht in Frage.
Wie finden Sie es, dass jedes Land selbst die Verantwortung für seinen Atommüll trägt?
Chernobyl has a bigger problem right now. Russia will need to build another shield because the thing is still releasing radiation like hell. The pollution in the area may take hundreds if years to get cleaned.
Well, it needs to be the experts I suppose. The normal citizen (like me) will not really know which location is suitable. Anyway, let's not 'export it' to vulnerable communities in poorer nations. That would be criminal.
It is precisely to this form of assuming responsibility for its own waste that Switzerland has (also) committed itself.
Genau zu dieser Form der Verantwortungsübernahme für die eigenen Abfälle hat sich (auch) die Schweiz verpflichtet.
I am afraid that the so called experts will do exactly that. Export to poor countries. Have you seen India, people there swim in Western trash.
Ideally, the discussion would not even have to be held because there would be no nuclear waste. But once we have the salad, there is no way around the fact that the decision will ultimately be made by science, with the involvement of the local population, of course.
Any potential site runs the risk (understandably!) of being undermined by NIMBYs ("Not in my Backyard"). One possibility might be to propose several alternatives and let the respective local population vote. If the population rejects in all locations, the camp could be built in the location with the lowest voting rate.
The issue is very sensitive because there is almost no other way than to decide a bit over the heads of the population. No repository is not a solution either.
Nevertheless, I feel very sorry for the people in the Nördlich Lägeren region.
Idealerweise müsste die Diskussion gar nicht erst geführt werden, weil es keinen Atommüll geben würde. Aber wenn wir den Salat schon einmal haben, führt kein Weg daran vorbei, dass der Entscheid letztlich durch die Wissenschaft getroffen wird, natürlich unter Einbezug der lokalen Bevölkerung.
Jeder mögliche Standort läuft (verständlicherweise!) Gefahr, durch NIMBYs ("Not in my Backyard") ausgehebelt zu werden. Eine Möglichkeit wäre vielleicht, mehrere Alternativen vorzuschlagen und die jeweilige lokale Bevölkerung abstimmen zu lassen. Wenn die Bevölkerung an allen Orten ablehnt, könnte man das Lager an dem Ort mit der niedrigsten Abstimmungsrate bauen.
Das Thema ist sehr heikel, weil es fast gar nicht anders geht, als ein Stück weit über die Köpfe der Bevölkerung hinweg zu entscheiden. Kein Endlager ist auch keine Lösung.
Trotzdem tun mir die Menschen in der Region Nördlich Lägeren sehr leid.
Join the conversation!