Fine, let them think that. I'm not going to burst their bubble gum, because you get the yucky stuff all over yourself. They think their site is especially good because there will be a waste repository right under it. Can you beat that?
I'm looking forward to watching this whole thing (at least on a good day!). I really don't know what will happen when it all blows up. Perhaps an emergency will be declared, and they will allow costs multiply by many times. Who knows?
2 comments:
Well that's what usually happens. The price goes up to several times the project estimate but by the time that becomes apparent it's too late to stop.
The inconvienient issue of nuclear waste reprocessing comes up. Perhaps they feel that the rock fissures are a good place to store liquid high-level radioactive nuclear fuel reprocessing waste?
So the geological prob with Bruce is that it is located on fractured rock and that would be bad for a waste repository. Is it also bad for a generating site? does the fractured bedrock increase seismic danger to surface structures?
The big problem with Bruce is that it is the Carlsbad Caverns of the North, but everything is underwater. If we were in a desert, they would be a tourist attraction!
For seismic, the loose rock doubles or triples the ground motion over real rock. As well, trainloads of grout have to be injected (think of the carbon!). As well, there is a real problem with the IAEA tickie box "Are you on karst?".
In the past, they have glossed over this, and you won't find any mention of it in the waste repository assessment. They set the agenda, and if it ain't on the agenda, it doesn't exist!
Post a Comment