Mavvik

I'm really quite confused by your critique here. You aren't against nuclear power, and you think DGRs are the best place to put nuclear waste, but you are concerned that it wont actually be managed properly? My concern is that it is not managed properly today with the current system of "Storing it in barrels above ground and moving it around every now and again". If your argument is that solar power is a lower risk, more cost effective option than nuclear power then say that. Don't use your expertise as grounds to criticize a waste management plan that you agree is our best option and that is desperately needed whether or not nuclear power is expanded. It only spreads more fear and misinformation about these sites.

Im not a nuclear bro, but a vast majority of the planet's Uranium is mined in Australia and Canada and both countries have pretty massive reserves. They have strict regulations and safety surrounding uranium operations. Naturally occurring uranium doesnt even pose much safety risk on its own, its the Radon that is generated by decay that causes problems for humans. Im not too familiar with how uranium mining is done but I imagine Radon risks can be mitigated pretty effectively with ventilation.

So have you actually done any reading on the topic? You are a geologist and using your expertise as an argument that you know what you are talking about, but if you dont use that expertise to read and interpret literature and reports that non-experts have trouble with then you are doing others a disservice and using your qualifications to spread misinformation. DGRs do not need to last "forever" radioactive waste decays to radiation levels equivalent to natural deposits within 10,000 to 100,000 years. As you know, this is a very short period of time on geological time scales and the risk of some unanticipated geological phenomenon cropping up at the selected sites that would operate quickly enough to matter are extremely slim to the point that the risk is essentially 0. Off the top of my head the only two things that could happen that quickly and unexpectedly are impact events and kimberlites. These are two extremely rare and unlikely events that would have far greater consequences than disrupting a DGR.

End of the day, even if we stopped all nuclear power tomorrow, we still need a place to safely store the waste that exists. DGRs are the safest option that I am aware of, but maybe you have encountered other options in your time as a geologist that I have not.

Thats extremely reductive and not an all a fair characterization of DGRs. Everything comes with some risks, the risks associated with DGRs are extremely small. As an educated geologist who claims to be familiar with this topic, maybe you could share what risks you are concerned about rather than broadly claiming that it is impossible to guarantee against any risks on the timescale required for neutralization of radiation hazard.

As a geologist myself, it doesnt sound like you are well informed. There are plenty of regions on the globe that haven't exhibited any real geological activity for billions of years. The places that deep geological repositories are proposed are very deep as in far below the water table and in impermeable rock. Erosion is neglible in these areas, and there are very few geological processes that could conceivably change that. The waste itself is to be stored in multiple layers of protection, right down to the material the waste is composed of, which has a low water solubility.

Is it possible that a mid contental rift will open up near one of these and result in processes that ruin the storage site? Sure, but thats so unlikely that we might as well start talking about a big meteor crashing into the site and spraying nuclear fallout across the planet (which would kind of happen anyways with a meteor that large). Point is, the risk of that happening even on geological timescale is pretty low. There are larger risks associated with natural uranium deposits or even regions with large amounts of granite.

The biggest risks of DGRs is that some time in the future, humans forget about where they are or cant understand the warnings placed on them and accidentally dig them up before they decay enough.

Its an interesting way to frame the problem compared to how it might be typically framed as "not enough jobs" or "wages aren't high enough" or the new favorite among Canadian politicians of a "productivity crisis"

Hard agree from me. Cars are such an inefficient use of resources its crazy. If I had it my way we would all get around by train, tram, or bike.

Ok I think I get it now, it is basically the flaw behind resource allocation through capitalism. The cost of supplying these mining towns does not match their ability to pay for those supplies after the mine goes bust. Do I have that right?

Im a Canadian geologist so I obviously dont have any personal stake in this but I do want to share my thoughts.

I think anti-mining sentiment is understandable in most places but not always justifiable. Lithium mining is absolutely required to transition from fossil fuels. Unless the number of cars on the road is greatly reduced, replacing them with BEVs will require significant amounts of lithium or improvements to Na ion batteries. There is not enough lithium available to get by just on recycling.

The question then becomes: where should this lithium come from? If it is not mined in western countries like USA or Canada, it will be mined by China or developing countries. In this comparison, who has better environmental regulations? Which countries have more human rights abuse?

If we decide that we can mine these deposits in the west, there is still a question about where they are mined. Do we extract lithium from basinal brines? My understanding is that these are generally more environmentally risky than extraction from pegmatites (the deposit type in New England).

The final question becomes, which communities will have to accept this mining? In Canada, most of the time it is indigenous communities that suffer most of the negative impacts of mining. There are many benefits to the communities too (usually), but the indigenous communities do not have nearly as much political sway as say rich cottage owners might, so their preferences and desires often get steamrolled by government in the name of "progress".

The unfortunate reality is that if we want to get rid of fossil fuels, we need to do a lot more mining and extraction or come up with some serious technological and societal innovation. In a globalized economy, saying that you dont want mining near your home means that you want some other people to deal with the potentially negative consequences of it. I am not saying that we need to allow all mining everywhere, but these are important ethical considerations that we have to make when talking about how we want society to progress.

Sorry for the rant.

This is an interesting perspective I haven't heard before. Are there historical examples of this happening?

Oh I see, thats very interesting thank you! Are you an archaeologist, or just someone very interested in stone-age history?

Where do European Neanderthals fit into this story?