UKC

Hi,

Please sign the petition if you are so inclined:

http://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/no-nuclear-dump-in-the-lake-district

For more information see:
http://www.noend.org.uk/

Cheers

Si

It already has the waste and it's had the economic benefit of the golden age of the UK nuclear industry. It makes more sense to keep it there than anywhere else.

In reply to Simonj:

Also, wont this stop any kind of city being built there in the future

In reply to Philip: which valley would you put the pylons across for the new power station?

In reply to subalpine:

Which new power station?

In reply to Philip:
One threat is the possible construction of scores of electricity pylons to connect the new Moorside nuclear power station, to be built near Sellafield, and wind turbines in the Irish Sea, to the national grid. Possible routes include scything across the Lake District National Park south towards Morecambe Bay, with conservationists urging that the cables are instead buried. A National Grid spokesman said that the preferred corridors would not be identified until the spring

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/19/battle-for-soul-of-lake-district

In reply to subalpine:

That is irrelevant to the subject of the repository for waste. The sites and logistics for the new nuclear sites is a separate issue. I don't think anyone wants to see the loss of thousands of jobs in Cumbria based on scaremongering.

In reply to Philip: i guess you would be in favour of burying the cables- out of sight out of mind? would you be in favour of burying nuclear waste from other countries under the lakes also?

In reply to Philip:

Hey up Philip, how would you like a nuclear dump putting underneath your home?

What's that? You don't fancy it?


Well there's a surprise.

In reply to Frogger: you scaremongerer! the logistics of the repository speaks for itself..

In reply to subalpine:

Guess all you like, you're rather ill-informed.

Buried would be better than pylons but I haven't had time to read about the whole thing.

I think you'll struggle to identify the exact foreign waste, but the proportion relating to overseas waste is due to return - some already has. I'm not aware this is a point of contention.

In reply to Frogger:

Presumably you enjoy having the electricity to switch on your computer and type that post. If you want to continue having it you need to accept that nuclear energy is part of all our futures. The waste has to go somewhere; wishing it away will do no-one any good.

In reply to Philip: once it opens, it would be a good moneymaker for us to import waste from other nuclear powered countries?

In reply to r0b:

you won't be needing it in our lifetimes..

In reply to Simonj:

Rather a nuclear repository or "dump" as you prefer to call it than a scaremongering dump on the forums every other day.......

In reply to Radioactiveman: can't argue with that..

In reply to subalpine: Ok repository. Not looking for an argument. Just raising awareness of the issue. people can make their own minds up

Cheers

Si

In my opinion economically, environmentally and ethically the best place to put our nuclear waste is in a deep underground repository. Its the only place we can expect long term stability & security, allowing 10,000 to 100,000 years (depending on reprocessing) without disturbance for the waste to become below the radioactivity of the Uranium ore that it came from. Most of the rock in the lake district is around 500 million years old and can be expected to last several million more.

I believe the site should be chosen primarily on geographic suitability, but unfortunately this is not practical as local politics gets in the way of every attempt outside of a majority nuclear employed zone. The only other volunteering has been of another current nuclear site at dungeoness, where they stand to lose lots of jobs when the power station closes. Even though the local council supports this it was strongly condemned by the wider local government, who are determined to prevent it. As a result of this type of unfortunate situation if volunteerism isn't used then there stands virtually no chance of a repository being built in Britain at all.

One key point about a repository which to some extent reduces the importance of the rock is its potential for waste recovery if things start to leak long before they should. Even if it is just used as another form of (relatively) infinite storage, anything leaking 500m underground is much better than it leaking on the surface!! If it is the best we can agree on then it is the best option, because we need a repository.

The alternatives to a repository;

Don't build one - This is the Scottish governments stance, to ban future underground storage for their waste, which is both unhelpful and shortsighted. How to they plan on keeping surface storage both secure and maintained safely for the next 10,000-100,000 years? Leave it to the kids to work out, eh?

Dump in deep ocean - ethically questionable, environmentally questionable (things live down there), potentially fairly secure, probable low future risk to humans, banned by treaty.

Put in space or sun - can you promise that rocket won't blow up before space???

Reprocess waste, reuse the 97% from reprocessing for energy generation, then potentially burn up or use the remaining 3% in advanced reactors or in future transmutation technologies. Prudently keep waste in a repository in the meantime until such action is taken or just store the small (3%) amount of 10,000 year waste. Or don't and leave it on the surface as we all argue about it!

In reply to Stuart Hurworth:

I've not seen the proposals for the siting of the repository -- though from my understanding things are very much at a feasibility and investigation stage. I would be highly surprised if it were proposed for the repository to be sited within the most sensitive parts of the National Park - particularly up in the Ennerdale valley itself.

It is an undeniable fact have a considerable quantity of both high and low level waste in the UK - much of which will be radioactive for many hundreds of years. The existing storage and reprocessing facilities at Sellafield and elsewhere in the UK have a limited life. The Scandinavians have demonstrated that deep underground storage of nuclear waste in a geologically stable environment is viable, and whilst I would love to see such a repository constructed in the leafy 'home' counties it aint gonna happen.

When so much of the waste is already situated in Cumbria, and if the geology is proven to be viable then why not construct a repository in the county. From my own involvement with the nuclear construction industry I know that this is something that has been talked about for over 30 years yet nothing has been done about it.

People need to 'get real' with this issue ( and about the fact that we almost certainly need more nuclear power generation to make up for the shortfall in energy supply that's likely to occur in 10-15 years time due to current generating capacity reaching the end of its working life).

Doing nothing is not an option -- but as there are not enough votes in Cumbria to be won or lost either way that will influence the outcome of future general elections, politicians will keep ducking the issue and leave the subsequent mess for future generations to sort out!

OOOOh I do like a good rant now and again!